Wikipedia:Teahouse

Finnusertop, 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

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there one where it may be a problem? as in there is no direct evidence but wikipedia is so much of the zeitgeist particularly for journalists that it would now be impossible to disentangle a genuine source from one that originated in wikipedia?

In the list of best selling books we have the issue that one editor is sure anything published after the article was created is pulling numbers that were originally unsourced or poorly sourced from the article. However these numbers now have many sources in books and newspapers etc which may not in anyway even realise they were drawn from the wiki article (if they were) originally, but are now used as sources to support those numbers. However, without interogating ever writer of ever source it is impossible to ascertain. So to resolve the issue I though a general warning, that sets out these numbers are based on sources, however the influnence wikipedia on journalism etc means that citogenesis may have occurred but it is now impossible to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.85.156 (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. {{Circular reporting}} fits, IMO, put together with the citations to reliable sources that are available. It generates which is only a question. The template documentation instructs editors to try and find a source that published the claim before the date that it was added to Wikipedia. Until such a source has been found and cited, it is up to the reader to make their own judgement about whether the sources that are cited can be trusted for diligence or if they are more likely to have pulled unverified anonymous original research from Wikipedia. For uncertain cases, one would seek WP:CONSENSUS on whether to add the tag based on how likely the contributing editors argue it is that citogenesis has happened. Sdkb had already linked this template in their original reply, so I am only re-emphasising that point. If you were asking a new question that I have failed to understand and, consequently, has remained unanswered, please feel free to reiterate. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I am the "one editor", though my belief is misrepresented. List of best selling books is a tricky page for a number of reasons, only one of which is citogenesis. It is certainly the case that we have had it cite other lists of top selling books, which have openly referenced Wikipedia, also lists that have referenced other lists that have referenced Wikipedia. But really, if a list of top-selling books of all time corresponds exactly to the Wikipedia list at the time it was published, it is pretty certain that it's a copy (one even uses the same references we do).

My injunction is not "don't use anything published after the page was created" but "be very careful and if it is something that we have removed, see if it has a source cited". All the best: Rich Farmbrough 01:46, 12 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)

Canberranone Yes, inline citations are those little numbers that appear at the end of every-ish sentence. Le Panini ^Talk 10:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Canberranone: To learn how to add convert vague links into inline references at the end of each factual statement, just follow the simple guidance at Help:Referencing for beginners. (Or see the alternative guide I wrote at WP:ERB.) Nick Moyes (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks but I think the references are attributed to the end of the information they source. The only ones I can see that aren't are under See Also and External Links Canberranone (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Canberranone! Any editor who comes across tagged articles may address the problems stated, or, modify or remove the tags if they happen to be wrongly placed or no longer applicable. Often, non-regular editors will address the problems but be wary of removing the tags which can result in articles with outdated tags that are no longer necessary ((FYI) then there are editors who oppose tagging articles at all on principle and would rather see people improve the articles instead of tagging them for someone else to fix).

I have removed both tags because the problems are not at all obvious and therefore the tags do not help speedy resolution of any that may exist, IMO. Anyone wishing to improve the article should look at it closely, identify specific problems and tag them individually or remedy them. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bully Admins?

Hi. Just curious. Is there anything to be done about admin bullies? Because there are many many admin bullies on here that just gang up and attack people, but if you retaliate, you get threatened with a ban. That does not seem fair. This seems to only exist on the English wikipedia. So I am unsure why this exists or how you deal with it? I am happy to finally have an account, after 10 years of applying. However, I do not want to lose it overnight. But I also do not want to be the victim of bullying and vulgar attacks. Thank you. Walther Faunus (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the great majority of interaction is editor-to-editor, not admins bashing editors. That said, it does not excuse rude behavior. English Wikipedia has different standards than other languages for defining notability and what are reliable source references. These are the major causes of disputes. The general advice is if you modify an article (addition or deletion of content and refs) and another editor reverts, to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article, along with inviting the other editor to join. Disputing content is fine, but it should not devolve to attacks on other editors. If this happens, there are avenues of redress. I hope you find articles that interest you, and you make valid, valuable contributions. David notMD (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Walther Faunus. I wanted to see evidence of administrators bullying you, so I looked at your contributions. You have only two edits to English Wikipedia, this one and an edit to your userpage. So, how have you encountered this bullying? Have you edited previously as an IP editor or with another account? I am an administrator and in my opinion, most administrators strive to be fair and neutral, and to base their actions on policies and guidelines. But there are a few administrators who skirt the edge of bullying behavior, and some have been removed for that reason. Humans are imperfect and sometimes they make serious mistakes. The problem I have with your comment is that it is vague and unspecific. Far better to say that three specific identified administrators are bullies, based on their contributions to these six conversations, providing diffs, or links to those discussions. Without specificity, your comment comes off as griping without evidence. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

My own application for an account, as you might term it -- I'd say registration of an account -- took only a few minutes. I'm astonished to hear of difficulties that prolonged your application process to a decade. (Most nations grant citizenship in less time.) By far the commonest reason for people to lose their accounts is having forgotten their password (and either not having registered an email address via which they could be given a replacement password, or having lost access to the email account that they did register for this purpose). Do pray tell us more about your troubled application process. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I too am intrigued by the idea of registering a wikipedia account taking more than five minutes. Perhaps Walther Faunus could tell us more about what happened there? --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not to pile on but I would wonder why, Walther Faunus, this sort of thing might be a concern for you. Are you planning in editing in a controversial topic area? One does not "apply" for an account(which suggests someone else will approve it), we create them ourselves; I'm wondering why it took ten years. 331dot (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• User was evading a block, I knew I had seen their user page content before. They were blocked under User talk:120.29.108.137. I still find their statements curious. 331dot (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Self published?

I've got a question about self published sources. When do you tag or consider a source as self-published?

In addition, what if a website, in which the author is the same as the one in the Wikipedia page, will be used as a source? I don't know if I'm understood with that, but I noticed it in some pages. Mottshmikes (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC) Mottshmikes (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Mottshmikes:. You can find out a little more about what Wikipedia considers to be a self-published source in WP:UGC and WP:SPS, but basically it's a source which has no real reputation for an established system of editorial control. A self-published source by the subject of a Wikipedia article can sometimes be used as explained in WP:ABOUTSELF, but there are limitations as to how it may be used and in general WP:SECONDARY sources are preferred whenever possible. Just for reference, Wikipedia doesn't consider itself to be a reliable source for any purpose, and any websites which WP:MIRROR the content found on Wikipedia are also not considered to be a reliable source. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thanks!!! Mottshmikes (talk) 06:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In a Biographies of living person, can the person's own twitter posts be cited?

Bob says x on twitter. I report bob said X, and use their twitter post as a citation. Is this allowed?--Michaelwalky (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelwalky: Tweets can sometimes be allowed per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:PRIMARY, but that often depends upon the context of the tweet and what/who it's about. Moreover, not WP:NOTEVERYTHING that's tweeted may be deemed encyclopedically relevant to Wikipedia readers; so, in some cases, even if it's true, the consensus may be that it's not really something worth adding to the article in question because doing so would give it WP:UNDUE prominence. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Michaelwalky: Twitter can be problematic because tweets can be faked with Photoshop, or deleted, which gives you a form of link rot. Your best bet to cite one is if it appears in an article, perhaps as a screen capture to highlight a controversial tweet that a quick thinking journalist saved for posterity. Then depending on the journalist's credibility, you can reference the article showing the tweet. Other than that, it's something you'd look at on a case by case basis, and I think it would largely depend on exactly what is being sourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: wouldn't using a twitter link and archive org be sufficient to prove the tweet indeed is legitimate?--Michaelwalky (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s not as simple as that unfortunately. The easier it is to post something on a site, the easier it is to get link rot. Somebody could link to the tweet, and then if it’s deleted it’s a dead link, but nobody would know unless they clicked on it. I think the best thing to do would be to consider this on a case by case basis and if you have concerns about sourcing post them on the article’s talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the time when a tweet is worth including in the Wikipedia article, there are reliable sources that comment on the tweet. For example, consider Donald Trump on social media: almost all tweets are referenced to secondary sources, not to Trump's Twitter account. —Kusma (t·c) 09:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Author for New Page Needed? Women in Red (History) Author?

A Wikipedia page is needed for an incredible woman who organized and led efforts to acquire, preserve, restore one of the most well known Revolutionary War sites, helped preserve another internationally known site, worked with the original Daughters of the American Revolution and became founder, first Regent of one of the first significant Chapters of D.A.R., was Matron-In-Chief / Nurse for three years during Civil War, at times tending over 2,000 wounded soldiers, was present (nearby) for Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, was State Regent at 1893 Chicago World's Fair, Authored three books, all while helping organize, raise funds / supplies, donate time for multiple other National, State and Community causes.

While collating information for another project regarding this incredible women it came to our attention that she is more than well-deserving of a Wikipedia page, yet none exists. There are highly qualified historical writers who have written or supplied content and bibliographical data over the past 100+ years, however there are currently no writers "that we personally know" available that also have the proper Wikipedia experience needed to author this page in a deserving way.

As you can easily tell I am neither a Historian or Writer. What we do have is an incredible amount of factual data supporting all of the above contributions. We are hoping to find a qualified writer to properly utilize that information for a page. The information historians, historical organizations, Authors and others have uncovered and have direct hyperlinks to comes from the Library of Congress, U.S. National Park Service, contemporary magazine and newspaper articles, pictures and factual data uncovered by highly qualified historians over the past 100+ years.

Please let me know if there is a qualified volunteer author we can review the data with.

Thank You. CBrookUM (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Why so covert? Can't you just give us the name, then it would be easier to judge if she were notable. Theroadislong (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Can you please tell us the title of the article you want, so we can tell whether we want to participate with you on the article?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

No Wikipedia editors are qualified. Well, I'm sure there are many who have various qualifications in their own fields, but there is no qualification required to contribute to any part of Wikipedia. Should you decide to reveal the name of the subject, anyone could get started on the article (even you!). --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, this is my first posting. While I am not trying to be covert, and there are probably hundreds of qualified people, especially given the volumes of links to factual data from incredibly reputable sources and the association with very well known historical sites, events and leaders that we have, it was strongly suggested to us that we reach out to someone with track record of articles on historic U.S. people and places. More specifically they suggested we try to reach someone from the great "Women In Red" initiative. If there is a way to do that, please let me know. Thank you again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CBrookUM (talk • contribs) 21:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You can always post on that project's talk page. You should also be aware that few good Wikipedia articles are written by just one person. If you take as an example, one article tackled by the WiR project - that's been edited by over 2,900 people. Some will have been historians or specialists, but others will have been fans or just people who like correcting grammar/fixing templates etc. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is big enough to make an article about?

Since I saw an image posted as a joke (a screenshot of a tiny, kinda useless Wikipedia article that I don't think exists), I've been wondering about what kind of things are significant enough to make an entire article about. (I did dig up and read pages like this.) For example, Sans, Flowey, and Toriel have pages, but other main characters from Undertale don't. But then, they're rather important characters...?

I'm sorry if this question is too silly or has been asked before and I just didn't see it in the Teahouse... Galina&Oddity (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure if this answers your question, but the judgement wikipedia uses to determine if an article should exist has to do with wikipedia's Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. SnazzyInfinity (talk • contribs) 20:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

To answer your question more directly, Galina&Oddity, and set out what is implied by SnazzyInfinity's answer: it all depends on whether enough has been published about the character (by independent, reliable sources). It does not depend on importance, nor on popularity, influence, ubiquity, earnings, or anything else (except insofar as something with some of those properties is generally more likely to get written about). --ColinFine (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Galina&Oddity: One of the smallest things written about at Wikipedia is Neutrino, so being that little is already big enough – taking your question verbatim.

OTOH, if you ask what is the smallest acceptable article, then the shortest I met recently is Cetraxate, which is just a single statement (however, it contains quite a lot of data in the infobox).

If interested in some shortest pages, you may want to see Special:ShortPages (many of pages listed at the top are just redirects or disambiguations instead of regular articles, and many are already in a deletion or speedy deletion process). --CiaPan (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Galina&Oddity: Another little object (although much bigger than neutrino!) with its article at Wikipedia is Mill Ends Park – just 2 feet across. :) --CiaPan (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Specify PDF page number

Map of the Isthmus of Panama representing the line of the Panama Rail Road (before 1857)

I want to update the image on Panama Canal fence to reference the 5th page of the pdf file (the one with the map), but I can't figure out how to - there doesn't seem to be an option on the visual editor and there's not an attribute for page number in the source editor Condimentary (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Condimentary The problem is that the "image" is actually the entire multi-page pdf document. You should upload the relevant page seperately to use it in the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@Condimentary: Here you go. Use:

[[File:Map of the Isthmus of Panama representing the line of the Panama Rail Road as constructed under the direction of George M. Totten, Chief Engineer etc. (IA mapisthmuspanam00harr).page5.jpg |thumb |Map of the Isthmus of Panama representing the line of the Panama Rail Road (before 1857)]]

—[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful :) Condimentary (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

pdf file shown with page=5

@Condimentary: You can write |page=5 in the source editor. The jpg uploaded by AlanM1 has better image quality for me. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dark Mode

Hello, I'm new here and have a very basic question. I don't know if I'm even in the right place to ask this. Is there a dark mode option for Wikipedia on PCs? I had an android smart tv box and there was a dark mode available in that app. It would really help with eye strain. Thanks. I hope I'm doing this correctly. --Chuckripp (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Chuckripp (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My assumption is that such a mode is inherent to the computer, not this website. Not sure about the mobile Wikipedia app.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Chuckripp. Whilst we have various 'skins' which you can choose from your 'Preferences', I don't think we offer a night mode. It's possible that your own device might offer that - you would have to check. I do note (but can't recommend) that there are a number of 3rd party add-ons which provide such a utility. This one, for example for Chrome users. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I hope this is the way to thank you for answering my question. I'm using Firefox with Windows 10. I set up Firefox in dark mode but Wikipedia still comes up with a bright white background. I'll play around with Firefox some more and see what I can find. Thanks for your help. I hope I did this correctly. --Chuckripp (talk) 01:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This sounds like it would involve .css shenanigans which are unfortunately outside of my expertise. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey Chuckripp. I've never tried it, but at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets, you can check "Use a black background with green text". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I checked it out. Pretty gnarly. Reminds me of 1980. It was worth a shot...--Chuckripp (talk) 05:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Chuckripp: I just checked and found that my horrible official 'Wikipedia mobile app' has a series of black/dark/sepia defaults, which might suit you, should you ever want to view on a mobile. But this app is useless for editing, but quite ok for reading Wikipedia under the bedsheets! BTW, if you want to ensure another person receives a 'ping' or notification alert when you reply, you will need to include their username in one of a handful of special ways, whilst signing your post in the same edit. You can read more about that at WP:PING. But if you don't plan to edit much, it may not be something you'll need again. If you do, you might like to take our interactive tour called The Wikiedia Adventure, or read through Help:Introduction. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My articles thing

I want to know how to make a thing like User:TigerScientist/Pages Created or something like that. Can you help me. TigerScientist (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC) TigerScientist (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

TigerScientist, unless there's something I'm missing, you could just go to the title of the unnamed page (e.g., User:TigerScientist/Pages Created), which should load up the editor. If it doesn't, there should be a link that says "Start the [name of page] page" that you can click on. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@TigerScientist: There’s this external tool at [1] that will count it for you. It will also allow you to export the list into Wikitext to paste into your userspace. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

How to add two URLs in journal article citation?

Usually I use citation tool of visual editor for adding references from various journal articles. Many times 2 link URLs are available link to journal and link to PDF or HTML article. In many cases, if one gives only one URL then finding other one can remain difficult In present citation tool I did not find facility to include both URLs (this makes reconfirmation verification process tedious if not impossible).

For example: I want to cite article PDF pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/Article-5_v18_2_Dec17.pdf If I enter this URL in citation tool for automatic generation of citation does not take place. If I create manual citation with same URL finding which is original journal URL will remain difficult for a novice. Besides original journal URL http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/12/V_18_2_2017.html responds for automatic citation. If I generate citation with http://pu.edu.pk/home/journal/12/V_18_2_2017.html is possible and includes this URL but then there is no space to include article PDF URL.

Is their any solution available to include two URLs in same citation.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: Template:Cite journal only takes one URL parameter, so you can't put two. Normally, we would put the DOI associated with the article, but yours does not contain one, which leads me to think that this is not a reliable/reputable journal to be citing on Wikipedia, instead leaning towards a self-published source. I'd suggest you look for a more reliable source to use. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby:, Let us not digress from main question with usual obsession. Let me give another example as you said DOI link. Now I want to add a DOI link plus PDF link or say a journal link. Or say some other link of proof to show it is reliable source. Is there any option of at least manually adding additional URL link in the template? If no one knows on this forum then I will forward my question to Technical Village pump.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 07:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, as far as I can tell the {{citation}} family doesn't support a secondary URL other than archive-url, so you're probably going to have to insert that second URL in manually. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu, Thanks for your prompt reply. Just I tried manually, it template does not seem to show immediate error but it does not give a display either. Further I will take up the issue at Village pump technical. Regards Bookku (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I need your help

Good morning, I have a problem. You see, I translated a Wikipedia article in Spanish. For this I simply translated words and entered the sources well, this is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Christopher_Louis_Chanc%C3%A9_P%C3%A9rez

And well, I was rejected for being something "advertising". I understand that they are different wikis, but they all have many rules in common.

I'll give you the article in Spanish: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Chanc%C3%A9

Please if you can help me, Thank you. MarioHernandez1976 (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@MarioHernandez1976: Please see WP:OSE. Chances are that the spanish language article is also inappropiate. And the folks over there dont have it easier than we, because they have 17,564 active editors (with edits in the last 30 days) for 1,646,114 articles. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 07:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

/* December 2020 */ Infobox Religious biography

In regards to the Infobox biography, the status should not be Senior Posting, but Muslim Leader instead.

How do I edit the status, or is it edited by your staff? Your prompt attention would be great appreciated.

Thank you, Imzaid (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC) Imzaid (talk) 05:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Imzaid. You are talking about Template:Infobox religious biography. That template is intended to be used in the biographies of the leaders of many different religions. So, the template should not be modified to comply with the terminology of just one religion. It is a more general template. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is about religious terminology, Cullen328. As I said when this came up before, the problem is that "Senior Posting" is a heading in the template, for a variety of information about the person's most senior appointment. As far as I can tell from the article, Zaid Shakir hasn't held a specific religious post (maybe he has a specific post at Zaytuna Collage, but the article doesn't make that clear). Therefore none of the fields in the section "Senior posting" are specified, and the heading appears with no content below it, which is why I think Imzaid is misinterpreting it. I suggested at Template talk:Infobox religious biography that the heading could be suppressed if there were no fields under it, but nobody has responded. Imzaid, "Imam" is already in the infobox: if "Senior posting" were removed, would that be acceptable to you? "Muslim leader" is a description and not a post, so it doesn't seem to me it belongs there.

On a related subject, Imzaid: are you Zaid Shakir? If so, please declare your conflict of interest and cease editing the article about yourself immediately. --ColinFine (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding Article improvisation

Thank you for inviting me. My questions are: How do I improvise information and Add pictures related to article. Sayli Bhalekar (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sayli Bhalekar: We don’t “improvise” anything. Instead, we base every piece of information on reliable sources. I’d suggest you complete The Wikipedia Adventure, which is a great tutorial for beginners. Also see Help:Pictures for images. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 05:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

If you meant "improve," adding content requires references, either new, or a new use of an existing reference. David notMD (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good template for similar articles?

I recently edited the article on Oscar C. Parkinson and noticed lots of other pages in the California State Legislature category are similarly stubs without much information. I plan to try and expand them with the sources I used for this article (namely JoinCalifornia.com and Statement of the Vote of California, as those were the only sources I could find with information on this person - they seem to line up), but I wanted to ask before I made edits to a bunch of articles. Is this a good set of sources and structure (infobox for example) for these articles?

A few examples of the other stubs: John N. Anderson, Ernest N. Mobley, Vernon F. Gant Tymewalk (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Tymewalk. That website called JoinCalifornia.com looks like a one person blog with a second person providing technical support. It does not look like a reliable source to me. The structure of the infobox is far less important than the reliability of the sources. For evaluation of the reliability of sources, please visit the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and follow the instructions there carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information - I've removed the information that came from that site from the article and I'm going to look to see if there's any other information on this subject out there. Tymewalk (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Tymewalk. As Cullen has said, that website may not be as a reliable source as you might think, seek other articles that revolve around that subject. _Signed,Benjamin Borg ^(Talk) 06:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Merging Pages

Hello everyone! I recently came across this article, Nitrogenous base which was a stub which I thought unusual for such an established and important topic. So I did a bit of digging and found another article, Nucleobase, which is the same thing as nitrogenous base. This article is more developed and detailed and the better one. So should I propose the stub for deletion (after extracting any information and references that can be use in the other article) or redirect it to the Nucleobase page? I don't know how to redirect / merge pages.   DishitaBhowmik 07:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dishita Bhowmik, I'm not a chemistry person, but since the two articles link to each other, some people editing them in the past have been aware of each other and decided not to merge, which makes me suspect that there may be some small distinction. Even if that's the case, though, we may still want to merge them because they're smallish topics and might be better presented together.

You can make the merge nomination yourself, via the instructions at Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger, or you can request it at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers, which will take longer but someone will help out. Getting enough participation to form consensus at those two fairly obscure pages might be a challenge; you could drop a {{Please see}} note at WT:WikiProject Chemistry. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dishita Bhowmik: The article on Nitrogenous base has a misleading title, as it is obviously intended to describe what is much more extensively covered at Nucleobase. General articles on chemical bases are those at Base (chemistry) and there are other more specific ones as well. The suggestion to discuss the merger at WT:WikiProject Chemistry is a good one (see for example the recent discussion at WT:WikiProject_Chemicals#Carboxylic_acids_vs_carboxylate_anion/esters). That was for specific chemicals rather than chemical classes, but the principles are the same. If you need help with the merger, which can be tricky, ask on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You both of you for your advice. I have done what I could and hope I did it properly. DishitaBhowmik 13:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Translating an article

I was requested this article Isabelle de Charrière for translation into Bengali and Hindi as I can read and write fluently in both the languages. However I do not know how to link these pages to the original English article once I have translated the text and created the pages in the Bengali and Hindi Wikipedias respectively. Could anyone possibly help me?  DishitaBhowmik 07:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Dishita Bhowmik You don't need to. Firestar464 (talk) 07:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Dishita Bhowmik, articles in different languages are linked to each other through Wikidata. Just fo to the Wikidata item via the left sidebar when you're at the English page, then enter the new language code and article title at the bottom. Let us know if you have any trouble and we can help further. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dishita Bhowmik: The wikidata item is d:Q123386 and you'll find the table of inter-language links by scrolling down to the bottom. The table is on the left side. At the top of the table (beside "Wikipedia") is a pencil labeled "edit". Click that to edit the list and scroll to the bottom, where you'll see a new line with "wiki" in gray in the language field. Enter "hi" (without the quotes) and then in the field to the right (which says "page" in gray), enter the name of the Hindi article. Another new line will open below, where you can enter "bn" for the language code and the name of the Bengali page. Click the "Publish" checkmark at the top of the table to save the changes. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question

Why some bot undo my edits frequently? Alexander The king (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Cluebot detects edits that don't appear to be coherent additions to an article. For instance this edit makes no grammatical sense which is why it was reverted. If Cluebot hadn't spotted it then a human editor would also have reverted it after a short time because it makes the article worse, not better. --Paul ❬talk❭ 11:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Other of your edits appear to be meant in good faith, but because you added content without a reference, reverted by Cluebot. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Article creation help

I have made a research about company and created a article it got deleted as it was mentioned as spam. How do I check whether it is spam or not. Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Vijayabhaskarjatoth Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about a company and what it does. That's considered promotional or "spam". A Wikipedia article about a company must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about a company, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable company. Press releases, announcements of routine business transactions, staff interviews, and other primary sources do not establish notability. Please read Your First Article for more information.

If you are associated with this company, you will need to read about conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for information. Will develop myself to do best things here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijayabhaskarjatoth (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Asking about Reliable Source

I want to know the below sources are reliable or Not? 1. Poster in India Today Magzine 2. highlighted in Aaj Tak News. 3. Mentioned too many times in a book published by HarperCollins 4. Certificates from the DRDO, Indian Army, and Most Government hospitals like Medanta, All India Institutes of Medical Sciences, Command Hospital, Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Institute and Research Centre and more certificates from government.

I researched since last 6 months to collect them. Please tell me is it enough to create an article or not?. Murad9711 (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Murad9711 What is it you wish to write an article about? Keep in mind that successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It's usually helpful to gain experience and knowledge of how Wikipedia works, and what is expected of article content, by editing existing articles for awhile first. 331dot (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot It means I can not create an article about an organization if I did not make any edit on Wikipedia? Murad9711 (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Murad9711 No. You may attempt to create an article right now, if you wish, using Articles for Creation. However, you will greatly increase your chances of success if you take the time to learn more about Wikipedia first. New users who dive right in to creating articles often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings as they repeatedly try to write and get an article accepted, but know nothing about what is looked for. I do not want you to have any bad feelings. That's why I suggested first editing existing articles, so you can get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content, before you attempt to write a new article. However, if you wish to write a new article immediately, you may do so, and I would strongly recommend that you use Articles for Creation to do so. It would also be a good idea for you to use the new user tutorial, but it is not required.

I am wondering if you are associated with the organization you wish to write about. If you are, there are special guidelines that may apply to you. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot Thanks for the answer but I am not associated with the organization. Murad9711 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Request to update year of birth for biography

Hello! Gary of Bitner Group here, working to update the James F. Allen article on his behalf by sharing requests on the article's Talk page. I've disclosed my conflict of interest on my profile and on the article's Talk page. First, I've proposed some specific changes to the infobox and categories re: his year of birth. I've also provided a source to confirm the year. Can someone please review my request and update the page for me? Thank you! GaryBitner (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

This is not about James F. Allen, it's about James F. Allen (businessman). Another editor has replied to your request on the latter's talk page. Maproom (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GaryBitner. Thank you for declaring your COI. (BTW, you linked the wrong article above, but the right Talk page). I see that somebody has now responded to your request; but in general, you will get a quicker response if you tag such requests with the t4eamplte {{edit request}}. See WP:Edit requests for more information. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Pascah Mungwini

Thanks for the review you have completed for my draft. I am disappointed though that my draft has been declined. The reason you have given for the decline is that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. The article is a biography of a scholar and the sources are the scholar's published works. They are published in refereed journals, so they can be verified. So I am not sure what you mean by your decline. Kudzai Matereke (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Kudzai Matereke Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. A Wikipedia article about a person must summarize what independent reliable sources say about a person, not merely list their own work or other means through which they talk about themselves. Wikipedia is only interested in what others say about them. Please read Your First Article for more information, you may also wish to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I find your Wikipedia's lack of faith articles disturbing appoint

Foreword: Contrary to what edit summaries mentioning this section may imply, I haven't found "appoint" being disturbed by "your Wikipedia's lack of faith articles". Appoint is a verb, not a noun, and you can't disturb a verb unless you know someone named Verb, or Appoint in this case.

I know these are two unrelated things, but I'm a bit disappointed that Peter Hastings (the Animaniacs co-producer) and the phrase No shirt, no shoes, no service don't have Wikipedia articles about themselves as of yet. There are redirective mainspace articles for a fictional Peter Hastings and a song called "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service", but no article on the real Peter Hastings or the phrase itself, and I've been wondering why no one on Wikipedia has suggested there be articles about either of them.

Could it be that the droids I'm looking for, despite being at least sort of popular, don't have enough coverage in reliable sources (as far as editors have looked) to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements? -- MrPersonHumanGuy (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

MrPersonHumanGuy, some things still don't have Wikipedia articles because no editors still have an interest in making them. There may be, though, editors who are still developing a future article in a sandbox or in their own document which they wish to transfer to Wikipedia once it's ready. If you want to make an article on the subjects, you can-- but please see WP:YFA, WP:NOTABLE, WP:RS, and WP:OR to better understand how a subject warrants a Wikipedia article. If the subject you're talking about, based on these pages, are not warrant-worthy of an article, then it probably makes sense why editors have not made them. GeraldWL (Pine wish!) 14:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Question from Mungkorn789

How do i add a flag Mungkorn789 (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be looking for Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Help adding a page for a language I came up with

I am not sure how to make a new page on a language that should work that I came up with. Any help is appreciated. БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to tell the world about something they created one day. If independent reliable sources take note of your language on their own who choose to give it significant coverage, it may later merit an article, but you shouldn't be the one to write it as you have a conflict of interest. I would suggest using social media or a personal website to tell the world about your language. 331dot (talk) 14:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Copyright

Hello, I added a photo and it has no copyrights but Wikipedia wants me to provide a copyright so what can I do. Yemenpedia (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yemenpedia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. When you say it has no copyright, do you mean it is in the public domain? If not copyright typically rests with the photographer. 331dot (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Help deleting me account

Help me delete my account because I just give up. Thanks БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ Accounts cannot be deleted, for both technical and legal reasons If you no longer wish to participate here, just abandon your account. May I ask the reason? 331dot (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@БОЇ ШНАТ ИОШ Џ: You can ask a steward to lock your account though --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 15:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Americans Killed in WWII

Hello;

Weeks ago I became dismayed when the number of American deaths from Covid 19 surpassed the number of Americans killed in the 4 year American Civil War, 212,000 according to my trusted source Wikipedia. I wondered if the death toll from the virus would equal the biggest killer of Americans, WWII at 292,000.

Imagine my surprise when I checked yesterday to find the wikipedia number changed to 491,000 for WWII.

Why was the number changed by who?

Thank you. John Lyons 2607:FEA8:13DF:6E00:E864:86BC:D6F7:D83A (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

2607:FEA8:13DF:6E00:E864:86BC:D6F7:D83A, you can click on the "View history" button in the tabs on the top of the article to view the edit history. As far as why they changed it, it could have been vandalism, I hope this answers your question. Could you link the article you are talking about? SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 15:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has hundreds of WW2 articles, so if you need more help you will need to let us know which article you are talking about--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:59, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The article is World War II casualties. It has had the value 491,000 for at least a year. I didn't attempt to find out who made that specific change, which will be deep in the edit history somewhere. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Same, I can't find any recent edits regarding the number of casualties. Most likely you saw a different number for a completely different event/topic.SenatorLEVI (talk) 16:06, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

And the sources ("BF") in that article seem consistent with the value. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

World War II casualties says 419,400, not 491,000. It's a total for all causes, including civilians. United States military casualties of war says 291,557 combat casualties, 113,842 other, 405,399 total. American Civil War says more total deaths including civilians. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

World War II isn't the biggest killer of Americans. Spanish flu is miles ahead. - X201 (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The article they're complaining about - which I found because OP came onto -en-help and complained about it, again without saying anything about what article it was other than Siri pulled it up, prompting me to Google it - is United States military casualties of war. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 16:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

That article may actually be consistent with the other, as it refers to combat deaths, not all deaths. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

public transit site update

information on a public transit site is erroneous. The city - City of St. Thomas - has re-branded their transit services including a new logo. Some of the edits I attempted to make ( I work for the City Environmental Services that oversees transportation) have been rejected. How do we ensure that our name/logo and content are correct? I also can't upload the new logo. Ttiersma (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The reasons your edits may have been undone could be due to a lack of a WP:Reliable source. If you can get sources to show that the content has changed, your edits shouldn't be undone. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Further looking at your contributions, it seems that your writing style has come off almost advertisement like. You can read articles about tone to learn about better writing. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

My page deleted second time

why my page is deleting? Sameer Khan Director (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please use the button at the top of the page to create a new section rather than doing it yourself. As far as your question, it looks like they have left a summary on your user page. SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sameer Khan Director, please see What Wikipedia is not. Promotion is forbidden anywhere in Wikipedia, in both articles and user pages. To see the purposes for which your user page may be used, see user pages. --ColinFine (talk) 16:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I use picture in Wikipedia articles of license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Content may be subject to copyright. ?

I was thinking of adding compound synthesis image(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281552098/figure/fig2/AS:280436698828831@1443872727919/Formal-syntheses-of-a-ervaticine-and-conolidine-and-b-latrepirdine.png) from (https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Formal-syntheses-of-a-ervaticine-and-conolidine-and-b-latrepirdine_fig2_281552098) to Ervaticine article? Can I, or will there be copyright issues?. Machinexa (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Machinexa (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back to the Teahouse. The license seems to be fine for use here. However, when uploading the image to Wikipedia Commons, you need to quote the source (i.e. give the URL as you did here). You'll be doing that from your own account at Commons using a downloaded copy of the .png. Make sure you give the image a suitable title: one much shorter than what's at the end of the URL! Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, New page created; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Weight_Lifting

Two template messages below have been addressed.

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location This article contains content that is written like an adverting

Earwigs Copyvio Detector now sits at just 2.9% and I have removed any words/phrases that may be deemed promotional.

Could i request a review of the template messages, and for their removal please? (Or further assistance if you feel they still need addressing)

Thanks and best, H.A.Player (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, H.A.Player. Somebody has moved your draft (which was not suitable at present for an article) to Draft:British Weight Lifting. The most obvious problem with the draft is that it cites not a single independent source. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . The article should not be principally about what it does, but what people have published about it. I also notice trhat the lead contains promotional language (eg "large network", "thousands of people actively involved" --ColinFine (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ok so I made minor edits on Wikipedia and they were not vandalism like insults but how do I make an article.

 Gremania (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gremania Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully creating a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much effort and practice. Many people fail in their first attempts and become frustrated and hurt because they tried to do something that they were in over their head for, due to lacking knowledge and experience. I don't want to see that happen to you. I would suggest that you spend much time(many months) editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and learn what is expected of article content. It will also help you to use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. These things will greatly increase your chances of success, which is what we all want.

If you still want to attempt to create a new article, you should first read Your First Article and use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft article for review by another editor. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

so is t ok to make minor edits on existing articles because it's not like I'm vandalizing but I'm saying is it ok because I'm new.  Gremania (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are welcome to edit articles. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gremania:: Yes, as long as it is clear you are acting in good faith, no one should be bothering you if you are improving articles. If someone expresses concern, just explain why you are doing what you are doing, and ask for help if you run into trouble. Welcome! --Jayron32 17:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gremania, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia. In my view, most new editors can add much much much more value to Wikipedia in their first months by improving some of our six million existing articles, than if they try the task of creating another one. Jayron32 is right that, as long as you edit in good faith, you will not get into any trouble; but it is quite likely that some of your edits may be reverted because other editors do not think they are an improvement. If that happens, it's best to start a discussion on the artice's talk page: see BRD. --ColinFine (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the difference between Google Alexa Siri?

Google works for Google, while Alexa works for Amazon, and Siri works for Apple.172.58.47.35 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC) 172.58.47.35 (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk Go there --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 18:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. The answer above is a bit vague so I would like to elaborate. Everything on Wikipedia has a purpose. The refdesk is the place where you can ask questions and get answers about facts whereas the Teahouse is a place where new editors ask questions and get answers regarding using and editing Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

so what do i do since now that i am new

 Gremania (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you have asked this above. If you have any follow up questions, please add them to that discussion. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gremania, Maybe check out Wikiprojects. Le Panini ^[🥪] 19:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

There are some helpful links in your talk page. (talk) TigerScientist (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing

How do I reference my source for an edit? Specifically, my source is a Facebook post I made. Can I do a hyperlink over my name to that post? If so, how? If not, what do I do? All the Wikipedia "help" pages seem very confusing. PianoMan58H (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

PianoMan58H Click the cite button. Then put the url into the space and wikipedia will generate a citation. TigerScientist (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

PianoMan58H, on how to reference, see WP:TUTORIAL. However, a FB post you wrote is not an acceptable ref for anything on WP, you need better than that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Retreiving a deleted draft

Sachechka13 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)how to retrieve a draft of new article that was deleted accidentally? Sachechka13 (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

By asking the administrator who deleted it for a copy. Ruslik_Zero 20:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Sachechka13, or you may make a request at WP:REFUND — Amkgp 💬 15:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

TfD closure?

Am I, a non-admin, acting in accordance with policy if I close the TfD request I made at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 5#Template:Uw-vandalism1? Note the high amount of replies and unclear consensus. Thank you for your time. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 20:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Opalzukor, I'd let someone else close it, admin or otherwise. Are you planning on withdrawing the TfD? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 20:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to put that in the question text. ​Yes, I intend to close the nomination as withdrawn. I couldn't find any policy about it though, thus the question here. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 20:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Opalzukor, SKCRIT point 1 is the guideline around this. As people other than you have recommended that the templates be merged, you shouldn't close the discussion as withdrawn. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 20:38, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thank you J947. I will be sure to take more time to review all the deletion guidelines in the near future. Opal|zukor^(discuss) 20:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

so articles are semi-protected does that mean every semi-protected article was vandalized just curious.

 Gremania (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gremania: not nessesarely. Articles may also be semiprotected for other reasons, including, but not limited to IP's editwarring, socking using IP's or throwaway acocunts, violations of the Policy for Biographys of living persons etc. Victor Schmidt (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Vandalised mostly, but some have been repeatedly disrupted (like pushing a POV or adding unsourced contentious info about living people) in a way that had to be limited. Also some templates are protected because they are seen to be 'high risk' on account of being used on a lot of pages. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ok I am asking to many questions but who is this Thbgb person I heard he was vandalizing articles and saying threats to jimmy wales.

 Gremania (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gremania, welcome to Wikipedia. We haven't a user called Thbgb. Please note that this page is for asking for help in editing Wikipedia, not for gossip about users. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

ColinFine, He is referencing Thubgb, a user who was vandalizing pretty recently and was blocked (see here [2]). Le Panini ^[🥪] 21:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's reference desk vs Quora

I am not quite sure if I asked this in the right place, but if not, please direct me there. My question is about where to ask factual questions. Is it better to ask at Wikipedia's reference desk or on Quora? I'm asking this because I get confused between the two websites and would like a little but of guidance on what to do when I have a factual question. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: Welcome to the Te... nah, forget that bit, seeing as it's you! My personal view is that anyone seeking factual information should develop the skills to choose appropriate keywords and use them to do browser searches for themselves. I never look at Quora answers when I get search Google results. I regard them as generally untrustworthy for anything other than really basic common-sense questions (or where there are absolutely no other available answers) The answers are user generated, just as they are at the Wikipedia reference desk. I seek out reliable sources, not personal opinions. If I were desperate, I might ask at WP:RD as I might perhaps expect to get a speedier answer. But would I trust it? That's another matter entirely. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity, Here's the rundown:

The Teahouse (here) is a forum to ask questions on how to use or edit Wikipedia. Get friendly help if you are a newcomer

The Help Desk is similar to the Teahouse, but is for more complex questions and for more experienced users.

The Reference Desk is a forum to ask specific questions on anything non-Wikipedia related. Although most questions can be answered using Google, the Reference Desk can answer word-specific questions.

Quora is basically the same thing as the Reference desk, but not involved with Wikipedia. According to our religion, it doesn't exist.

(and you know, when you try to use the User:Enterprisey/reply-link only to see it result in an error, and when you try to respond again you see that Nick Moyes already answered it, it makes you want to nominate him for deletion. I'm still answering this because effort is effort.) Le Panini ^[🥪] 21:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I understand the factual part of the question. I knew the purposes of the Teahouse, help desk, and the reference desk before you gave me the answer. I thought this would be a borderline question. For example, if I were searching for the most influential people of all time on DuckDuckGo (I use that, not Google), I would get many different answers regarding the topic. Wikipedia points out all sides in a neutral way. Where would the best website be when searching for those type of queries? Interstellarity (talk) 21:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Interstellarity: That is a good example of a question that belongs at WP:RDC, since it is not related to how to use or edit Wikipedia. RudolfRed (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much RudolfRed for your guidance. Your username reminds me of the reindeer that helps Santa get his gifts. I will ask there. Many thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

yes my edit on chano portrait was reverted I am sorry forgive me I was trying to add a link to William Shakespeare for people who don't know him.

 Gremania (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Gremania Instead of placing your statement in the smaller section header window, you should place it in the larger edit window below. You don't need to come here and apologize for all of your mistakes. 331dot (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

look my edits are being reverted sorry just wanted to improve some lines a little.

 Gremania (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Having a few edits reverted, especially when you're starting out, wont be held against you. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User blocked as a sock. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

331dot, I KNEW IT! I was thinking, "Hey, this person kinda writes similar to that Thubgb guy from a while back, who got blocked for threatening the almighty Jimbo. They even brought it up, which is odd, considering they're new and this happened a while back". Oh, thanks by the way. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Birdeatsbaby article: request for review

I just moved an article I've been working on from my sandbox to the live space. I'm happy to receive constructive feedback, thanks in advance. Note - this is my first article, so although I did as much research as I could, please don't assume I know something that may be common knowledge elsewhere. Thanks! URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdeatsbaby K3n51mm (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Birdeatsbaby has, in my opinion, TOO MUCH INFORMATION and HUGE amounts of it unreferenced. David notMD (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, the fact that you have been working on this article - and only this article - since August 2018 suggest you have a personal connection to the band - either paid or unpaid - and should either declare that on your User page or explain no so on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 02:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jimmy Blackmon Page Editing Feedback

 Courtesy link: Jimmy Blackmon

Hello,

I recently published the page, "Jimmy Blackmon" and have received feedback from several reviewers on Wikipedia. Some reviewers mentioned issues on the sources and reliability of them. Can someone provide additional guidance as to the specific sections of the article that may not meet the notability criteria or simply require additional references?

To address the comments regarding my user name, I originally created this account while under the impression that I could convert it to the Jimmy Blackmon page itself, then to find out later on, that simply serves as a sandbox environment, talk page and profile hub which is why I have a similar profile name as the page).

An article cannot be completely based on what we call primary sources, which are sources that the subject written about themselves including official sites and tweets. Also, Wikipedia has a rule about notability, which is how we determine if an article is "important" enough to have an article. This means that we need multiple independent reliable sources to go in depth about the subjec JFBlackmon (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

JFBlackmon, are you asking a question or making a statement?--Quisqualis (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

confused about comments regarding draft not accepted

Hello: I just edited a page created by an unknown author. Somehow THAT page was accepted even though it had outdated information and less information than I provided. When I submitted it for review I received the following: "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people)."

The subject has frequently been featured in articles in Bloomberg, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Business Journal, Wall St. Journal, etc. and is frequently interviewed on major financial television programs. I did not include these references when I edited the article (at her request, to correct the inaccuracies by the mystery person who created the page). I don't understand how the original page could have been accepted as an Article for Creation when my edited version, which was simply an attempt to make the page accurate, has been rejected. The subject is by all measures worthy of a page. Please advise. Thank you! Paula F Warren (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Paula F Warren, According to your contributions, you've only edited on one article. And according to you, you do have a conflict of interest with her. If she told you to change something, you are now editing for her. And if she has been featured in all of these sources, why aren't you citing them? She could then possible pass the WP:GNG. Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

What is the draft? TigerScientist (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Betsy Cohen Le Panini ^[🥪] 22:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Paula F Warren. I see no evidence that you have edited any other article. What was the precise name of that article? As for your draft, it has some major problems. Promotional language like "Following an illustrious career in banking, commercial lending, and real estate investment" is not acceptable and you need to comply with the Neutral point of view as that is a core content policy. Perhaps the biggest problem is that large swathes of the draft are entirely unreferenced. An acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what published reliable sources say about the topic, and includes references to those sources. Nothing else should be included, especially anything based on your personal knowledge. Original research is not permitted and all content must be verifiable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Le Panini, thank you for your reply. As a new user, I was unaware that knowing someone was considered a conflict of interest. I did not include the Bloomberg and other citations because that seemed ancillary to her actual career. Paula F Warren (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

User Cullen328: Thank you for your reply. I have not edited any other article besides the "Draft:Betsy Cohen" - I can see this will need to be revisited, but I am somewhat mystified--it sounds like you're saying that I should take, for example, an article from the Philadelphia Business Journal or Bloomberg and put that in the draft with references; that would provide some info but not the full story. How do you include info that is true and might be interesting but not published elsewhere? Or don't you? Paula F Warren (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Paula F Warren. Let me be crystal clear. You cannot include any information that is not verified by a published reliable source. It may be true and interesting but it has no place in this encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:46, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources. . --ColinFine (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Reorganized the draft, but did not address the reasons why it was declined. David notMD (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Blame feature

I remember having a feature where you could select a piece of text, and you could right=click it to find the last revision it was changed in. I can't remember the tool that did this (not in RW prefs, not in account prefs), but I swear it existed somewhere. Anyone knows what that might be so they can jog my memory? WikiBlame isn't it afaik, it's an external tool. This is inline and enabled somehow... WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 22:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

WhoAteMyButter, are you thinking of Who Wrote That? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but I think its the closest I may ever get. Thanks! WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi WhoAteMyButter. Please see Wikipedia:WikiBlame. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

Please see last sentence. Haha. WhoAteMyButter (📬│✏️) 23:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Experiment

Hi, I'm conducting an experiment for a class at my school, on how credible Wikipedia is. We have a controlled experiment, where we went to edit some unknown pages, making both conspicuous and inconspicuous edits, and recording the amount of time this takes to get changed. Just wanted to let whoever's behind this to know!! Jawadm06 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jawadm06 I would advise you to not proceed with this experiment. You or others will be detected and action taken, possibly blocked. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Jawadm06, How about this short answer (and don't do this, just take my word)

Vandalism is very easily encountered with on Wikipedia. First, you have the people that keep an eye on the article in question (using WP:Watchlist) and will simply revert the issue. It is not that hard to fix; if it takes someone 15 minutes to change slight words all throughout an article, someone can simply hit "undo" in the articles history. If that isn't done, it sure as heck will in Recent changes, where many patrollers actively make sure nothing fishy is going on. The third line of defense is bots; User:ClueBot NG will do tedious changes that basically knows (without much error) what is vandalism, and will change it quickly. People also like to use Wikipedia:Twinkle. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jawadm06: If it hasn’t been clear enough, do not do this. Even though editors revert vandalism quite quickly, imagine if someone happened to read the article before a revert can happen. That means you’ve mislead the reader, even if that’s not your intention. Please find a different experiment to do. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Ganbaruby, They've been blocked for a period of 48 hours. A+ to them, for sure. Le Panini ^[🥪] 04:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Advice on correcting information on a sensitive topic

I took it upon myself to fix missing page numbers in references for the Wikipedia page Tulsa race massacre

I checked out the book "Riot and Rembrance" cited in the page from my local library and found the various quotes and the corresponding page numbers.

Where I'm requesting advice on is the following quote in the section Property Losses "The Red Cross estimated that 10,000 people, mostly black, were made homeless by the destruction."

I've read the entire book and the only mention of the number 10,000 is a statement that the population of black Tulsan's at the time of the riot was 10,000. Also there is a mention of the Red Cross providing temporary housing for 4,000 people.

Do I simply change it with new verbiage that conforms more closely to the book being cited? Do I mark it as a unsourced number? The rest of the section on the Property damage does come from the book.

Thanks for any advice. Grgrant (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Others will have more suggestions, but for starters I would use a {{Failed verification}} template. Le Panini ^[🥪] 03:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Grgrant: Thanks for the effort! I’d say it’s fair to just remove it and mention 10,000 elsewhere, perhaps in the “Background” section. Be sure to leave a good edit summary. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both for your advice!Grgrant (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Reference citations [ ]

Is it possible to read articles of information without the reference citation numbers. Thank You WayneDrach (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@WayneDrach: There seems to be a way to do so, found at Help:Reference display customization. If you’re just trying to read Wikipedia, that’s fine, but if you’re intending to edit it, I’d advise against it. A central idea to Wikipedia is verifiability, so we rely on these sources to check if the information is correct. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

dont know how tounrefund a person

 2607:FCC8:FFC0:24:5851:226F:3B16:B7AA (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please clarify what you are asking about. RudolfRed (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be "Don't know how to un-refund a person". But even then, what? Le Panini ^[🥪] 04:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Translating pages from English

Hello, I want to help translate articles into Simple English. Is there a guide for translating pages? I'm sorry if this has been asked before. Aquackers (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquackers: That guide is Wikipedia:Translation. I recommend you use the Content translation tool (as explained on the translation page), as it takes care of some of the formalities with translating. Just keep in mind simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquackers:Addendum: I linked to the page in the wrong direction. Wikipedia:Translate us deals with English to other wikis. However, it's somewhat more out of date, and Wikipedia:Translation is still useful. Vahurzpu (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Vahurzpu: Thank you so much! Aquackers (talk) 06:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Archiving references /citations

My understanding is that if we run the "fix dead link" tool, and choose "Add archives to all non-dead references (Optional)", then the archives will be stored "offsite" (example: web.archive.org) in addition to being added to the article.

At some point, I learned that sponsoring the archived links on WP, increases both the article size and download time. So, depending on the number of citations, I have "Add[ed]archives to all non-dead references". Once complete, I have undone/reverted my edit. Reasoning: The references were now stored offsite, and would be available in future, if a link went dead. But the WP article wouldn't be increased in size (and download time for readers, etc.).

I am giving archiving advice to a new editor. Can anyone confirm that this process of archiving/adding archives, and then "undoing" the edit, works as I understand it? Thanks, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 06:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How to add photo

Hi , how can i add a photo to a wikipedia page Kinghafis (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kinghafis: I have left a welcome message at your talk page. In addition to that, Help:Pictures goes more into detail about inserting images into articles. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kinghafis: you can add photo to Wikipedia page by add the code [[File:(image file name)|thumb|250px|(add caption to explain that photo)]] in the article section. For the image file name, you can search or upload the images at Wikimedia Commons. WPSamson (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

removing deletion message

So,there is this article about a console,and that article is proposed for deletion,it is called "Ending-man terminator"(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ending-Man_Terminator) ,I guess the reason for deletion is that it has no references,so I added a reference,so now should I remove the proposed for deletion message or not? Simulator-master (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Simulator-master, as it's a proposed deletion, yes you can remove it, but that article is probably going to eventually go to Articles for deletion unless you scrounge up more sources to cite most of the content, not just the beginning. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there Simulator-master. I'm the editor who has proposed that article for deletion, so I hope you don't mind hearing from me.

First of all, thank you for adding a new source to the article. The lack of acceptable sources for content in the article is the reason why I have proposed it for deletion, so new sources help. Secondly, you can read about the proposed deletion process at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, but I will summarize it here: Proposed deletion is only for uncontroversial deletions, so anyone may remove the deletion tag for any reason if they object to it. That includes you.

Thirdly, however, while I have no standing to stop you, I would ask that you not remove the proposed deletion tag, unless you can find more sources than the one you have added. There are not enough sources in the article currently to support the text that is there, nor are there sources to support the required notability that all topics must demonstrate in order to have an article on Wikipedia. So, even if the proposed deletion tag is removed, the article as it exists now should still be deleted, it will just take longer to do it. If you want to save the article, then you need to find more sources. I tried myself to find some, when I previously removed the unacceptable material that was in the article before, but because it is a pirated system, sources for it are very scarce, and the ones I could find were all just mentions that such a thing existed. The article needs much more than that to survive. So that you understand, I'm not opposed to having an article, I am only opposed to having an article that has no sources, or bad sources, for the claims made in the article text.

Again, thank you for doing actual work to improve the article. It is badly in need of more, though. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Need help regarding fixing sentences that contains weasel words

 Courtesy link: vcash

Hi everyone, I have an article that has ongoing GA nominations review and one of the sentences the reviewer found to be unacceptable are "Some merchants who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively." due to the sentence written like the weasel word. I am thinking of fixing the sentence, my planned idea including:

• Some merchants, including coffeehouse, juice bar, SMEs and microbusinesses, who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively.
• Some merchants, including Hainanese coffeehouse Yut Kee Kopitiam and juice bar Life Juice, who were early adopters of vcash viewed the service positively.

What do you think about the correction I planning to fix? (or suggest your own idea on fixing the sentence to fix the sentence.) Thanks

References that support this sentence: Growing trend for e-payment WPSamson (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@WPSamson: There is a chance that the reviewer didn't see the reference at the end of the subsection, but perhaps a colon can be used to make some changes:

Some merchants that adopted vcash early viewed the service positively: they praised the low transaction fee rate and noted that the adoption of e-wallet services led to shorter queueing times and improved customer service at lower costs. The service's analytical tools helped merchants better understand their customers' spending behavior.

Reference at the end, of course. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 08:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Why should I donate to Wikipedia ...

... when it seems that many articles on political matters and people is dominated by those willing to repeatedly edit out any contrary information and able to spend the time doing this censorship. I actually have a life, and am not supported by George Soros. So, I am effectively prevented from "combat" in this arena. I just made my annual donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, BUT THAT WILL BE THE LAST TIME! Davidlgilmer (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidlgilmer There is no censorship on Wikipedia, but it is not a free speech forum for any and all points of view with equal weight. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with a reputation of fact checking and editorial control say about a topic, and gives due weight to how topics are covered in those sources. If you are interested in collaborating with other editors regardless of political viewpoint to arrive at a consensus as to what an article should say, you are welcome to point out any properly sourced information that is missing. If you disagree with what reliable sources say, you will need to take that up with them. If you just want to be told what you want to hear and what fits with your world view, then this isn't the place for you.

Whether you donate or not is your decision, but donations or withholding donations has no impact on Wikipedia content, as if it did, this would cease to be a neutral encyclopedia(though do not confuse neutral with being free of bias; Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, as everyone has biases). Donations are collected by the Wikimedia Foundation that operates the computers Wikipedia is on, and they are not involved in day to day operations. 331dot (talk) 09:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Davidlgilmer, I've checked your contributions to Wikipedia, and they're both still in place, neither has been reverted by a Soros supported or anyone else. So I don't know why you refer to "combat". Maproom (talk) 11:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Because you like the articles about Star Trek, Biblical criticism and COVID-19 pandemic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Help publishing a bio

How can I make an artist bio publishable? The draft I submitted has been turned down and I don’t know how to satisfy the reviewer Windsome429. Jean Constant is a Google scholar, listed in ORCID, has published over 30 books and papers. He has several works listed in Wikimedia Common He produced 2,000-some artworks in his career and all the links and references in this draft are not random but send to specific places and events relevant to this artist biography. Any advice will help. Thank you. Bysance (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Bysance (talk) 11:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of your refs at Draft:Jean Constant have nothing to do with JC - all they do is confirm that certain universities, institutions and people exist. Remove all of these references. Before you resubmit, model your draft on artist articles listed at List of modern artists. David notMD (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Article reviews are taking too long.

Hello WP community, This is kinda getting frustraing. I've made a Wikipedia article a while back (April of this year) and, it said that article reviews could take up to 3 months. Guess what, it's more than 3 months, and my article is still listed as a DRAFT. What is going on?! I don't get it. If anyone could answer me that would be great. :D Flipsosmasos (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are referring to Draft:Ugetsu Kitan which you created in April/May but never actually submitted. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Flipsosmasos, hello! Is this about Draft:Ugetsu Kitan? That draft has not been submitted for review, see WP:SUBMIT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Flipsosmasos, I have added a Submit button to the top of your draft. —teb728 t c 12:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Note, however, that your draft as written fails WP:GNG. And check your draft where it says Improving your odds of a speedy review.Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I see you say "developed by Will" about the game. That may be the most optimistic wrong link I have seen in Wikipedia. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

How about "creature"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Less than 30 minutes from submission for review, to getting reviewed. That's impressive! Maproom (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And deleted (at the author's request) a couple of hours later. --ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Create image for wikipedia pages

Bold textHi How can i create new images for wikipedia? Because i would like to insert an image on a page i am creating which, unfortunately, is not found on wikipedia. D10s Maradona (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @D10s Maradona:, head on over to Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard and you'll be given a step by step process to upload an image and include the right licensing information. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Better order is first get the article (not referred to as "pages") approved, then upload an image and add it to the article. David notMD (talk) 00:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

the draft Draft:D10s Maradona currently named after you rather than the topic (looks like this happened when moved from sandbox to draft). David notMD (talk) 00:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

How to create a new page

I don't know how to start a new page.

I would really like to start a new page, but don't know how to. Bababeoy (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bababeoy: Please visit Learn how you can create an article. — Amkgp 💬 15:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Submitting An Article

How can i submit an article for review MasterJohnPal (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello MasterJohnPal and welcome to The Teahouse, I have added a submit template though I must warn you that it will be rejected if you submit without first finding multiple independent, reliable sources that discuss you in-depth. Theroadislong (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

MasterJohnPal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are referring to Draft:Ogunwale Isaac it is unfortunately unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. It reads as a social media style page. Wikipedia is not social media, but an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about(in this case) a musician, showing how they meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician. Wikipedia is not for merely telling about a musician. I would suggest that you review Your First Article and use the new user tutorial to learn more about Wikipedia. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do here, and you should learn as much as you can, and perhaps edit some existing articles, before attempting to create a new article. If you are ready, you may use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by an independent editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. This way you get others to see it first. 331dot (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

MasterJohnPal You have now removed the submit template so will not be able to submit your draft Draft:Ogunwale Isaac. Theroadislong (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Original content from United Features Syndicate

A friend of ours, Dorothy Keefer ( Rambonnet) has left us many original drawings, office & get together pictures & photographs from when she worked at the United Features Syndicate from 1940's to mid 1970's Dorothy started as a telephone operator & worked her way to office secretary. She had many art works, photographs, notes and much more from Feg Murray, Ernie Bushmiller, Rex Maxon, Alan Maver, I. A Bayliss & more in her collection.

Want to know if anyone is interested in this collection. 2600:8805:B400:87:396A:421F:7FAE:F73B (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This is a place to ask questions about using Wikipedia. It is not a general comment forum. That said, I might suggest that you contact a local library or historical society. 331dot (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I take your question as one about the possibility of offering her photographs for use here (and thus disagree with the comments above). Thank you!

First, a question: when you say she left them to you, do you mean she willed the photographs to you and the Will has been probated? (You define your relationship as "friends", so you could not have inherited them through intestacy). If so, good, you **probably** own the copyright, which is the right starting point for this issue. **I say "probably" because there are a number of circumstances that could mean that Ms. Keefer did not own them, even if in her "collection", or co-owned them, either of which would not give you free rein over their copyright. Anyway, for purposes of further advice, I am going to make the assumption you own the copyright outright (if not, the inquiry ends there).

The only way we can use them is if you are willing to release the copyright under a suitably free copyright license (or even freer – into the public domain) that allows their free re-use even for commercial purposes, with the only obligations of re-users anywhere being such things as providing proper attribution, and disclosing the copyright license you choose upon the release in a certain transparent manner.

If you are willing to do that (and as I indicated, verifiably have the legal authority to do so), then yes, they may be very useful here, and the way to donate them for such use is to head over to our sister project, the Wikimedia Commons and donate them. The details of their upload and their release are beyond the scope what I can post here, but hopefully, the Commons' upload wizard will appropriately guide you. See also Commons:First steps, and the tutorial accessible through that page. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Long story (somewhat) shorter, understand that to share them here (actually on Wikimedia Commons), you would be publishing them, just as if giving them to Variety to publish, though even more freely, allowing anyone, anywhere to modify and re-publish them as long as they attribute the source. You must therefore own, or have control of, the copyright to the material.

There is one other option. If you find an article here (on Wikipedia) that could benefit from one of the pictures, there are a set of criteria at WP:NFCC that would allow you to make a picture available while still retaining rights (which you must still demonstrate you own). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 17:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1 Just a little sojourn into arcana. As far as I know, one must be a non-owner to make a valid fair use claim; an owner falls outside the very definition – fundamentally being an assertion by a third party seeking exemption from the default condition that non-free copyright works can only be used or licensed by owners.

If you think about it, this makes sense because the ultimate purpose of the doctrine is to define a carve out in the law from the remedies available to copyright owners for infringement (enforcement and/or damages). With that legislative goal in mind, it would make no sense for an owner to be able to claim an exemption under the very doctrine that is devised to protect their interests (e.g., the very idea of an infringement lawsuit being commenced, on these facts, becomes a non sequitur).

I wish I could remember the details enough to locate it, but there was a discussion quite a few years back that I either participated in, or possibly just monitored (maybe at FfD), where this was fleshed out at some length.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Draft:FOMALHAUT TV

Hi there, I wanted to know if the admin had a nick of time to check the following article. I've already edited major mistakes about the article that was reviewed by one of the admins, Timtrent on July 15th, 2020. If there's any problem(s), please let me know. Thank you!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Fomalhaut_TV Danialhalim680 (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Danialhalim680. I'm no expert on TV channels but the article will never get approved while many of its "references" just point to arbitrary websites like Apple and Google. We need reliable secondard sources that actually cover and verify the material in the draft. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I need more research for the information I've added. I thought that might as well called references, but I will read first about reliable secondary sources article. Thank you for helping me out! --Danialhalim680 (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Additions to an article

Hello! I have been editing the page Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud. The current definition of the articles, as stated below the name is “Members of the US Republican Party have reacted differently to Republican President Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 United States presidential election, with some denouncing it and others supporting it. Trump falsely claimed to have won the election,[1][2][3] and made many claims of widespread fraud arising from postal voting, despite substantial evidence to the contrary.[4][5][6][7][8][9]

By December 5, only 27 out of 249 Republicans in Congress had acknowledged Biden as the winner of the election.[10] By December 2, over three weeks after Joe Biden's victory speech, most of the Republican members of Congress who commented on the presidential election still sided with Trump.[11] By December 11, 126 out of 196 Republican members of the House backed a lawsuit filed in the United States Supreme Court supported by nineteen Republican state attorneys general seeking to subvert the election and overturn the election results.[12]”

Additionally, there is a sidebar at the top that says “This article is about the reactions of prominent members and leaders of the Republican Party to Donald Trump's 2020 election fraud claims. For these election fraud claims themselves, see Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election and Disputes surrounding the 2020 United States presidential election results.“

Another editor continues to add former Republicans. I deleted them (Joe Scarborough). The editor then started editing on the talk page. Before I go any further, I just want to say that I’m not here to rat out or report anyone. I just want to have a little confirmation from other experienced editors to help me work this out before I do need to report my fellow editor (which I hope I don’t). I may be wrong too, so please let me know. So anyway, the other editor says that since there are other former Republicans on the article as well then they should all stay until a consensus has been made about adding former Republicans. I told the other editor that there should be consensus on former Republicans in the talk page before adding it as a criteria. I also asked the other editor to cite a criteria of the article that says former Republicans should be added (not only current members of the Republican Party). The editor cited that the word “former” is used 39 times in the article without citing an example or any context and also said that one of my edit summaries, I used the word former, which somehow constitutes as a guideline. They stated that cited material should not be removed (which I agree with, but if the citation does not say that they’re current republican, and the article criteria, as far as I can see, is current Republicans. The user then went on to say that there are two other former Republicans on the page, and that one was added by me. I admitted that I did add it (David Durenberger), because I added all of the names from an article saying former Republicans who recognize Biden’s win. However, I stated, that I should have read the article criteria first and if they couldn’t show the criteria includes former Republicans, then I was also wrong to add a former Republican before consensus was reached and that they should all be removed until the criteria of the article is reached. The other editor stated that the article is after 1932 and based on politics, posted a warning on my talk page, and then said that I was trying to take ownership of the article. Am I in the wrong here? Is the other editor? Or is it a mix of both? Thank you. Just Piping In (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you are doing the right thing, Just Piping In, and discussing your issue on the article's talk page. If consensus cannot be achieved, the next step may be to seek a third opinion.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Quisqualis, I appreciate your help. Currently the only thing I’m worried about is there being no strict criteria on the article. If there is no real rule, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren could be added. It’s a bit of a stretch but without official guidelines that allow it to be added, it’s possible. Anyway, I will most likely ask for a third opinion. Thanks again! Just Piping In (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Just Piping In: I have left my view from 'across the pond' in the form of a comment on the article's talk page, which can be read here. I think I'm siding with your view, but I don't really care who I side with. My view is my view, and I hope it helps attain some consensus there which benefits users of the encyclopaedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, thank you for your opinion! I don’t mind if anyone sided against me or tells me I’m wrong. I just want some clarity. And to be clear, I don’t really care if former Republicans are on the list or not. I just don’t think that they currently should, as there is no criteria nor consensus on them being added, only current members of the party. For example, the List of Republicans who opposed the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign clearly states who belongs on the article. There is no doubt that the Republicans mentioned above would be added to that article based on that criteria (if they opposed the campaign of course). While Nick Moyes did not answer that question, you did help us come closer to a consensus on what should and should not be added. I just hope the other editor understands that these other names should not currently be on there until consensus on changing the criteria has been reached, as it appears others agree with. By the way, I also applied for 3rd opinion so thank you Quisqualis!Just Piping In (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Page approval

 Courtesy link: Draft:Rajesh Chaplot

Page approval

I had created a page few months back and one reviewer suggested few changes and I had resubmitted with the changes. Now after 3 months,another guy came and rejected it. can somebody help me to get this page approved Kishormeru (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

It'll be hard. You'll need to start by discarding all the current contents, as unreferenced. Then go through the references (which are listed, but only one is cited), and discard those that lack significant and independent discussion of him. Then, if you have any references left, rewrite the draft based on those, citing them as you go. Maproom (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Evidence of mistaken rejection of sandbox proposal

Responding to editor SK2242’s judgment that my sandbox proposal to replace article “Problem of induction” violated protocols NPOV and NOR, I presented a table as evidence refuting that mistaken classification. The table format was botched, making the evidence undecipherable. How can I get a second chance to present my evidence?TBR-qed (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC) TBR-qed (talk) 18:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

TBR-qed, take another stab at it further down the discussion, with "EDIT:" as the first words of your post. You may replace all you initially wrote there, as I've left a note in anticipation.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Text in a box

Hi. I was trying to type something in my user page, and the text was in a box. It also looked like writing from the source. What happened? Hayta= 19:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You added a space in front of your text. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 19:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I had my first article rejected, I help me to be approved and have my new account in good stand

Hello everyone,

I just created my account and wrote my first article, unfortunately was rejected, I would like to have some help to be approved and have my account back to a good stand,

Thanks Ferreirajeanjf (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ferreirajeanjf: Having a draft rejected is not a reflection on you or the standing of your account. Based on the reviewer's comments, the topic you chose for User:Ferreirajeanjf/sandbox is not notable and so should not be an encyclopedia article. Creating a new article is not easy. I suggest you work to improve existing articles for awhile, then use the guidance at WP:YFA when you are ready to try again. RudolfRed (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

You and your account are fine. Basically, this was a learning experience. Your draft first declined, main reason you had copied content from an existing website. Then, Rejected (stronger than declined), and then nominated for Speedy Deletion. If you do no contest the SD (I strongly recommend you do not), the draft goes away, and you can continue to be a registered account. One reason for the Rejection and SD is that the only ref you proposed was the organization's own website, which does nothing toward meeting the notability criteria. David notMD (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Ferreirajeanif Unless people not in any way affiliated with CLO have published about CLO, at length, no potential for achieving notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Help...My article was rejected

Hi, my article was rejected because it sounded like a sales brochure. I removed the overview section and kept the history section of the article. Can someone review this and give me some more pointers to improve the article?

Current version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Defold WDeri77 (talk) 21:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse, WDeri77. You did absolutely the right thing by deleting13,000 bytes of promotional content, but you have not yet answered the request on your talk page for you to declare whether or not you have a Conflict of Interest with this product. See WP:PAID for how to declare who might be paying you, or simply reply to declare openly that you have no connection whatsoever to this product or company. (Oh, and a few non-insider sources in the article might help - see our notability criteria for software products. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick. I appreciate your feedback. I updated my talk page with a declaration that I'm not connected or paid by the company to write the article.WDeri77 (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment on rejection of Savoy Motel article

Comment On rejection of Savoy Motel article: Super frustrating. Band's been active for 6 years, played SXSW, gets radio play, written up in trade mags, etc. Still not good enough for WP. Hours of my time-- trying to meet all the standards, linking all sorts of articles, reviews, ratings, etc.--dismissed with a snarky elitist comment about garage bands. 24.189.252.17 (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse, I'm afraid that Discogs, Instagram and YouTube are not reliable sources and do nothing to establish any notability. Theroadislong (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the biggest issue is that the band as it is isn't notable for Wikipedia's standards. The only reference out of the four provided that appears to be reliable is the Pitchfork one; the Youtube channel and Instagram link to the band (which don't prove its notability) and Discogs isn't great because it's user-generated (from this discussion); they could potentially work as external links if the subject proves to be Wikipedia-notable. More reliable sources demonstrating its notability are required. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The form that walks you through creating a new article form stresses the need to use your own words. This seems to contradict the idea of user-generated content being unreliable. Not sure how to square this circle. The Garage Band comment is what stung the most. These four make up a working band, they're not fooling around in their parent's basement. They're gigging every week, getting paid. They opened for Kesha during her 2017 tour. The "notable" barrier seems to be extremely subjective. Not sure how big a circle of influence has to be. Nashville, TN might be seen as a backwater burg to some, but there's always been a big scene for music. If you do a search on the band, you'll find they're referenced in other articles. They just don't get one of their own. I wasn't expecting this velvet rope vibe. Finally, since the article's been removed, I can't make any of these suggested changes. As I said, the experience has been frustrating. If the urge hits, I might try again someday (maybe when they chart, when their third album comes out, or when they hit some kind of milestone). Thanks for your attention.24.189.252.17 (talk) 00:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It's use your own words ((thus avoiding copyright infringement for copying website content), BUT having references that are considered reliable sources. And I know your intentions in your last comment were intended as sarcasm, but in truth too many artist/entertainer/actor drafts are declined as WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The form that walks you through creating a new article form stresses the need to use your own words. That is correct; to avoid toeing the line and making a copyright violation, information from reliable sources should be given in one's own words. That doesn't contradict WP:USERGEN, as user-generated content can be hard to verify without a source that is considered reliable.

They're gigging every week, getting paid. A lot of bands and other groups get paid every week, but that doesn't necessarily mean they'll catch the eye of reputable sources that give them significant coverage. Wikipedia can be a difficult place to navigate, especially if you're trying to create an article, which is one of the hardest things to do on here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 00:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

song relevant enough??

Under the pages "such-and-such (Disambiguation)" or any other page that shows a list of possible meanings, if the word is the exact name of a particular song/track, would that count to be put in the list? Probably not, because it's such a small thing (game soundtrack so...), but just asking. Rolex Kaard (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Rolex Kaard: If the song has an article on Wikipedia, you may add a link to it on the disambiguation page. RudolfRed (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Being asked for donations

Even after donating, I'm repeatedly asked to donate, as if I didn't donate already. Is there a way to stop this? 64.229.216.21 (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If you create an account, you can disable the fundraising banners. RudolfRed (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

As you are using an IP address, there is no way to know that the person sitting at the computer at any given moment has donated or seen the donation requests. As noted, if you create an account, you can suppress the requests. 331dot (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

The software cannot tell who is at the other end of an IP address. Please create an account. Go to your Preferences, navigate to the Gadgets tab, and check the "Suppress display of fundraiser banners" box. For additional concerns please contact the Wikimedia Foundation at this email address: donate@wikimedia.org. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:35, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Read more why here. Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I get the same even after donating monthly by standing order to Greenpeace ... except that they still send me the bloody requests, in my name, and through my letterbox! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear - I think that's the first time I've ever sworn here in ten years! Nick Moyes (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, "bloody" is like saying "oh frick". Don't worry, you'll still go to heaven. Le Panini ^[🥪] 02:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Precedence concerning article names....

How does WP determine precedence in regard to article title names? WP has a stub article for Art Napoleon, a film director (1920-2003), consisting of one sentence, seven film credits, and two references. Meanwhile, we have Draft:Art Napoleon (Artist). This Art Napoleon has a "career" encompassing Indigenous political activism, several TV programs, (some that he translated into Cree) educational publications (Cree/English) and a music career, etc., supported by 39 citations.

I am entirely uncertain about the choice of "Artist", which gives impression that Napoleon paints or sculpts. Given the amount of refs and coverage in RS, I would think that the current "Art Napoleon" article should be changed to "Art Napoleon (film director)", and the draft should be titled as "Art Napoleon". If I move the current Art Napoleon to "Art Napoleon (film director)", what would/should/could be done about the Draft title? May the Draft title be changed to "just" Art Napoleon? WP:AT doesn't seem to address this. Curious... Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 23:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tribe of Tiger: Welcome to Wikipedia. The naming guidance in cases like this is at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This can all be sorted out when (or if) the draft is approved and moved to mainspace. Don't worry about the name for now, just focus on working to make the draft the best it can be. RudolfRed (talk) 23:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, The link you provided was exactly what I was looking for! This is not "my draft", although I have edited it. However, I have read comments that imply that "artist" drafts may not be as interesting to our excellent volunteer reviewers, because they may be promotional, poorly referenced, etc. Having edited (albeit in a minor capacity) for nearly five years, I am fairly confident that the draft will be accepted...but was puzzled about the naming. There is always something to learn about WP. Thanks so much for your friendly, kind and prompt assistance . Sincerely, Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 00:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

article for nonprofit

I want to publish some information about a registered nonprofit NGO in Yemen, YFoundation. It is well known that Yemen is going through severe political unrest leading to the national economy dropdown. YFoundation contributes to serving the community through several humanitarian initiatives and interventions. Also, it seeks to accomplish economic stability especially for the most vulnerable households in Yemen.

Your advice is highly appreciated. Hmd-yf (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hmd-yf: Welcome to Wikipedia. Writing a new article is not an easy task for new users. First you will need to see if the foundation meets the criteria under WP:NORG. If it does, then go to WP:YFA which has all the steps needed for creating a new article including a wizard that will help you create a draft you can submit for review. Update: I see you already working on a draft. See the note left on your talk page for why it was declined. RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

‎Hmd-yf (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that like many people in your position, you have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a place like social media for organizations to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about an organization, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Wikipedia is not interested in what an organization wants to say about itself, only in what others unconnected with the organization choose to say about it. Wikipedia is not for telling the world about the good work your organization might do.

Your draft was rejected because it was sourced to nothing but your organization's website. We aren't interested in that, only in what others say about your organization. If no reliable sources have written about your organization on their own(no press releases, staff interviews) then it would not merit a Wikipedia article at this time. There may be alternative outlets where what you want to do is permitted.

You will need to review conflict of interest and paid editing for information on formal disclosures you may be required to make. 331dot (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Error in hexamethyldisiloxane

 WordsTheMum (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

When I use a search engine to look up "hexamethyldisiloxane", I get (among other hits) a hit for the Wikipedia article, which (as far as I can tell) is correct. However, the page of hits also includes a rectangle at the side that starts out "Hexamethyldisiloxane is an organosilicon compound with the formula O[Si3]2" and ends "More at Wikipedia". The formula "O[Si3]2" is inconsistent with the Wikipedia article, and I'm sure that it's incorrect, since the correct formula is "O[Si(CH3)3]2" [subscripts brought up for ease in printing]. It would be good to correct the incorrect formula. WordsTheMum (talk) WordsTheMum (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

WordsTheMum, that sounds like a Google Knowledge (or similar) panel, which conglomerates information from the top search results if I remember correctly. We are not responsible for the panel. There should be a feedback link to report any errors in it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 02:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, WordsTheMum. You didn't state which web browser you were using to search on. The 'Knowledge Boxes' these browsers create are entirely their own affair, and are sometimes quite badly wrong. Wikipedia cannot do anything about what Bing or Google etc choose to pull together. If our results are wrong, we can fix them here, but not elsewhere. I do note that, as at this moment, Google does give the right formula. (see here]) Tomorrow, it might just as easily say that hexamethyldisiloxane is the lead violinist in the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, and there'd be nothing we can do about it here. But most good quality browsers have a 'feedback' link where you can report duff results. Please do that, and trust Wikipedia, not algorithms. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

External links

 Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting § Guidelines for style of podcast articles

I'm trying to start the manual of style for podcast articles at the Podcasting Wikiproject, and I'm unsure about what should be included in the external links list. I've already started a conversation on the Wikiproject talk page and I read the wikipedia page on external links, but I wanted another opinion because the project isn't super active and the rules weren't explicit enough.

My question is whether it's appropriate to have an external link to a podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher at the same time. It seems redundant and unnecessary, but I don't see why one of the three is more important than the other (or even why lesser known podcast platforms aren't just as important or reliable). Including links to three, four, or even five platforms would be easy, but I'd say that it violates the rule that you're supposed to keep the list minimal. There's also a rule that if an official website contains links than they shouldn't be included in the external links section, however, that seems in contradiction to the rule that articles for published works should have links to a platform providing legal copies of the work (i.e. most official websites for podcasts include links to platforms like Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, and Stitcher).

Overall, I'm torn between whether I should include all three or only one, and if it's only one then which deserves it? Personally, I think I'd choose Stitcher because it's a hosting platform specifically for podcasts rather than a company that sells music and other media like Apple and Google. TipsyElephant (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant! I'm going to reply at the talk page conversation so as to avoid a WP:TALKFORK. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To edit or not to edit? That is the question.

So far, the only edits I have made to Wikipedia pages are grammatical ones of which I am CERTAIN there is something incorrect and I know the correct way to fix it. However, there have been several instances in which I see something that, although it might be grammatically correct, it is just poorly written for coherency. Still, I respect the author's style and have left those stylistic deficiencies alone. To what extent should we edit an article that lacks smooth transitions or coherent flow? Will Searcy (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Will Searcy, I'd say be bold and change it if you think it could be written better. If someone reverts, feel free to bring the issue up on the article's talk page (as part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 05:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yep, the Be bold essay speaks to exactly this question. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 05:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Will Searcy. Almost all developed, decent quality Wikipedia articles have multiple authors, and no editor is entitled to own any article. Personally, I am happy to see other editors improve the quality of my writing. If disagreements crop up, discuss them on the article's talk page with a goal of developing consensus. So, the answer is edit to improve the encyclopedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Page

How can i create a wikipedia page?? Kinghafis

@Kinghafis: creating a new article (not yust "page") sucessfully is one of the hardest tasks one can undertake on Wikipedia, it requires much effort and practice. That being said, if you are still sure you want to do this, please folow these steps:

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Review my draft

My draft hasn't review till now from 3 days ! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahmed_Mohamed_(entrepreneur) Johny112 (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You asked, and it was Declined. Be aware that there are thousands of drafts submitted to AfC and awaiting review. The process is not a queue. As clearly stated after you submitted the draft, the review process could take up to several months. If you chose to revise and resubmit, there is no expectation that next time it will get a fast review. David notMD (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Stopped editing History of Pernambuco

I have over the last several months been editing the History of Pernambuco article. I saw somewhere an admonition to 'be bold', so I have just jumped in the water. Although I am certain that I must have violated some conventions (or rules)---and I can't say that I devoted a lot of research to making sure I was 'coloring inside the lines'--- nevertheless I have tried to abide by common sense and those conventions that I was aware of. I put a note at the end of the Talk page about what I have done. It seems quite apparent that this article is a bit obscure, but before I requested a copyedit, I thought I should ask here if someone could take a brief look and comment on whether I would be wasting the time of a copyeditor if I request such. Thank you.P2dwight (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, P2dwight. I couldn't possibly comment on the content of the article but as a casual reader it seems that the lead section is too small. For an article of that length, I'd expect about a four-paragraph summary. Very few articles get copy-edited, just incrementally changed by other editors, so I wouldn't worry about that. If I'd written as extensively as you have, I'd remove the {{multiple issues}} template as you have addressed lots of things people worried about in 2017. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just an opinion that the section and subsection titles are too long (I shortened some) and there are too many, resulting in very short subsections. David notMD (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

How to discuss an article with other Wikimedians?

I would like to discuss certain improvements in articles with other editors before undertaking them, in particular where sections are missing. How to do this?

Thank you. Eli185 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eli185: Click on the "Talk" tab of the article in question and see if your issue has been previously discussed. If not, add a new section there. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

pictures

I am not sure on how to add pictures from google its quite annoying any help would be welcomed! Nathaniel20056 (talk) 16:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nathaniel20056: The short answer is "don't". Very little of what you find published on the internet (or for that matter, in books, newspapers, magazines, etc.) can be copied and used in articles here because it is copyrighted and not freely-licensed. That is, the rights to publish them usually belong to the photographer, creator, or publisher. Read about Wikipedia's image use policy. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yemeni Hip Hop

Hello, There is an article about Yemeni Hip Hop and I want to add a new artist , what should I do ? Yemenpedia (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Yemenpedia. You need to be careful. As stand-alone lists explains, WP has a policy that something is in a list has to be WP:NOTABLE. The presence of an article in WP should confirm notability but for most other artists that won't be the case. I think that's why Theroadislong already reverted at least one of your additions to Yemeni hip hop. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The "new artist" probably refers to this draft Draft:El Godfather - الجادفاذر, which is rather lacking in suitable reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Secondary characters relevant enough to add?

I was thinking of adding information about a group of secondary characters which return many times throughout the series to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumberjanes . Is that worth adding, or should I leave them out? Softsylveon (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

As long as you have Wikipedia:Acceptable sources, it's notable that should be good! SnazzyInfinity (chat? • what I've done) 19:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Can new users nominate an article for deletion?

Can I do as a new user? SSH localhost (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@SSH localhost: Yes, any user may nominate an article for deletion. Follow the instructions at WP:AFD. But, it may be better to wait until you have experience and understand what would make an article qualify for deletion. You can raise the question at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion to get some input on if the article should be deleted or not. RudolfRed (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Please explain this diff?

Could someone explain this diff to me? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AHunter_Biden&type=revision&diff=993812824&oldid=993790812 . That was an active, confirmed, protected edit request. I then tried to post this question on the Talk page, and a new section is shown, but the link from the TOC appears dead. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The best way would be that we ask @SPECIFICO: about his edit. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I had actually gone back to that discussion to find text from a user to include in a neutrality barnstar. I give up on that article. Charles Juvon (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

You were persisting in posting unverified adverse assertions against a living person. Please refer to our policy that prohibits such posts. Your view had been exhaustively addressed by several longtime editors there, so the gentlest way to end it was simply to archive the discussion. Alternatively, it could have been formally closed with a warning and rebuke to you, but that seemed pointless. SPECIFICO talk 20:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I will strike any comments that are defamatory based on a consensus or administrative opinion. However, I can't find the archive, and I don't understand how an open edit request with so many comments from other users can disappear based on one user's opinion.Charles Juvon (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

To the Teahouse hosts: Please help me find my confirmed, protected edit request on the Hunter Biden talk page. I just tried an undo on the archive and it didn't work.Charles Juvon (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Charles Juvon, you deleted it yourself. Undoing something from one page doesn't bring it back on another. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 23:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for trying to help. Above you see, "the gentlest way to end it was simply to archive the discussion" from SPECIFICO. That makes it sound like I was doing some disruptive editing, which is not true. I did fail to restore the section by an undo in the archive, but I did not archive an active discussion. I fear doing a cut and paste operation because that is a template and I don't want to get in trouble. I also don't want to do an undo on the talk page itself, because there are more recent edits. Can you restore this edit request to the talk page? Alternatively, given some time, I will make a new edit request, however, that means all of the other user's comments will remain in the archive. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to How to deal with evident errors in sources

I asked this question before and will re-ask, simplifying and removing the particular situation. My question was how to deal with an article that has obviously wrong information though that information has a valid source. The answer,

"The best way is to see if there exist other sources that contain the accurate information, and removing the inaccurate source for one of those."

does not really work.

The article says Subject studied in college under Professor X. One apparently reliable source says that. But other sources, and Professor X's Wikipedia page, show that Professor X was 12 years younger than Subject, was 17 years old when Subject started college, and only became a professor 8 years after Subject graduated from that college. (these numbers may be a little off.)

The answer would have me look for a source saying did NOT study in college under Professor X (which I won't find because there are an infinite list of people under whom Subject did not study while in college, and no point to list them), and to put into the Wikipedia page that Subject did not study in college under Professor X (which shouldn't happen because that is an obvious and uninteresting fact).

What I ended up doing was delete the incorrect assertion from the Wiki page and put on the Talk page an explanation of why I deleted an assertion in the article even though it was footnoted and supported by a source - because the source is obviously wrong.

Does that make sense, or is there a better approach? Thanks. Sullidav (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Sullidav (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link: this is about Alma Thomas.   Maproom (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely is, thanks Maproom, and sorry not to say that.

& Professor X is Lois Mailou Jones. The Wiki page had described Jones as Thomas's professor at Howard (among other apparently incorrect statements), citing old and new versions of a National Museum of Women in the Arts page saying that. But Thomas was 14 years older than Jones, Thomas attended Howard 1921-1924, Jones was a Howard professor 1930-1977. I deleted the obviously incorrect statement from the Wikipedia page & explained in Talk. Sullidav (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

whitewashing information...

Truth suppressors... Why does Wikipedia support the whitewashing of truth? what is so scary about the truth? Why do you support the crazy leftist agenda sweeping our world? The article on Satanic Ritual Abuse is absolutely WRONG! IT was not merely a "moral panic" - the only reason you would say that would be to suppress the truth...which means you support liars - which is what satanic ritual abusers are. So you are on board with them??!! This whole site needs to be shut down! 24.237.147.1 (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi person editing from IP 24.237.147.1 I hope you are quite young. If you are, there's hope that you can come out from under the cloud you are under. If you are already an adult, but still so credulous as to believe in this nonsense, then you likely also subscribe to a huge body of quackery, misinformation and conspiracy theories making up an echo chamber you have self-limited yourself to for gaining knowledge about the world. In turn, you have almost certainly insulated yourself from taking in the fundamentals of intellectual rigor—or you wouldn't hold forth in the manner you have here.

That, in turn, makes it a near certainty that you are currently impervious to demonstrable empirical facts (and the techniques for both gathering evidence to learn about the true state of the world, and the meaning of the evidence itself once gathered, in order to learn from first principles whether something posited is likely to reflect reality); how to winnow out good secondary sources from the bad; to not rely on appeals to authority for information and how to research yourself and come to independent conclusions through surveying a dialectic of reliable source material.

I don't blame you, it's difficult when we have a huge industry devoted to promoting such stuff. In any event, Wikipedia employs a number of policies and guidelines that attempt to make it much more likely that, when followed well, our articles we tend to reflect reality, rather than the side of fringe nonsense. We don't always get it right, but that type of moderate qualification is going to be lost on you, given the extreme side you are on.

Of course, you will almost certainly read this as the pompous talking down to from a leftist liberal godless asshole that it most certainly is; yes, yes, I was brain washed by too many years of education; Trump stole the election; 911 was an inside job; yes, yes let's take that as read. Unfortunately, there's not a lot of choice but to talk down when your post is what it is; re-educating you is beyond the scope of what can be done here. But understand that the chastising purpose of your post, the point you wish to make, is certainly lost on me (and I bet most reading it), not because I don't hear you, but because as much as you're here to tell us about our terrible errors, you're simply and utterly wrong, in a rueful headshaking, shrug-of-the-shoulders and what-can-you-do, eye-rolling-way from the adults in the room.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

YouTube

Is YouTube a reliable source? We are the Great (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We are the Great, Almost always: no. See WP:YOUTUBE for more. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

New entry attempt for Ronald Gonzalez (artist).

I have created a new entry for Ronald using the template provided for " how to add an artist to Wikipedia". I believe I have followed the guidelines and submitted the page for review. Can you please let me know a status on this submission? Jpspano (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Jpspano. You have not, in fact, submitted Draft:Ronald Gonzalez for review yet. To do so, you (or someone else) would need to insert the submission template at the top of the draft and proceed from there. I'm not going to do that, because it looks to me (although I'm not a reviewer) that your draft so far lacks sufficient inline citations to published, independent Reliable sources that (a) establish the subject's Notability and (b) corroborate all of the statements contained in the draft. Much of it reads to me like a self-produced resumé rather than a summary of material published about the subject by others.

Hopefully, others with more knowledge of Art and expertise with reviewing will come along soon to offer you advice on how to improve the draft, probably on the draft's Talk page (which I've just initiated for you) rather than here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gonzalez. the article doesn't appear to have been submitted for review. I've added a submission button for whenever you're ready. --Paul ❬talk❭ 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Weird mixed-language terms and the MOS

Greetings fellow tea addicts,

and another question: I just read up on the MOS on foreign language terms, and wanted to update my older article contributions to adhere to it. However, I am a bit confused on what to do with Lake Võrtsjärv: The second word is most definitely pure Estonian (I can't read IPA and still have no idea how to pronounce that), but the "Lake" preceding it is definitely English. So should I mark the whole term with {{lang}}? That would be wrong, as "lake" is an English word. But if I mark only "Võrtsjärv", it turns italic and looks weird next to non-italic "Lake". Any advice? -- LordPeterII (talk) 21:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

LordPeterII, is the orthography verbatim in English sources? If so, you could refrain from using {{lang}}. Otherwise, {{lang}} does have the parameter |italic= that you can set to no to suppress auto-italicisation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) (🎁 Wishlist! 🎁) 22:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirects/Hatnotes

I have a draft receiving edits currently before being moved as an article to the wiki mainspace. Though, the title of my draft is being used as a redirect for another article, Emmeline. How could I have that redirect removed so that I could use the name "Emmaline" for the title of my article. My draft is about jazz singer Emmaline. Would this require me to have the article name "Emmaline (singer)"?

Thanks. RosarioFreedom (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@RosarioFreedom: When the draft is approved, it will be moved to the appropriate title and if the redirect needs to be removed than that will happen at that time. RudolfRed (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Uploading old pictures from family archives

I am trying to upload a number of WW2 pictures with commentary. All pics are owned by me inherited from my father. As I am trying to post pics and details to enhance info on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Pinon_(AN-66) I am getting a warning pics do not meet wikicommons standards. ProudSon2020 (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Can someone help explain what I need to do, thanks!

Hello, ProudSon2020. Did your father own the copyright to the pictures, or just the physical pictures? If you cannot demonstrate that he owned the copyright, then Commons cannot accept that you own the copyright, and have the right to license them. Sorry. --ColinFine (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to add to what ColinFine posted above, you might want to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history about this by posting a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Even if you can demonstrate you own the copyright on the photos you want to upload, they still possibly might not be something suitable for Wikipedia as explained in Wikipedia:Image use policy#Photographs and Wikipedia:Image use policy#Adding images to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello ProudSon2020. If your father was the photographer and took the photos as a personal hobby, then he was the copyright holder and, as his heir, you are now the copyright holder. If the photos were taken by your father or anyone else as part of their official duties as employees of the U.S. federal government, then they are in the public domain and no copyright exists. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, please explain what you mean by "commentary". RudolfRed (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

RudolfRed, Maybe "with captions". Le Panini ^[🥪] 00:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Corey Allen Jr Basketball.

Is there any way someone can make a wikipedia page for Corey Allen Jr the basketball player? Gameovername (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)