Wikipedia:Teahouse

GreenMeansGo, 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

Sources in drafts: Part II

I have seen that my thread about drafts was archived almost a month ago. I have some doubts that are still unsolved, but I will start with the tweets. I have found two tweets that might be useful: this one might help to verify André's cameo on Red's Dream (although the user misnamed André by the bee's name instead of his actual name, which it is derived from a Greek word meaning "man") and the other one might verify the existence of a Christmas card featuring André and Wally B., as well as the Stained Glass Knight from Young Sherlock Holmes.

Whilst Twitter is included in the list of sources which are unacceptable, I have seen that there is a template about using tweets as references. In brief, I have had to ask about the use of these tweets before including them in the Pixar-themed draft, as I do not know that these tweets are reliable or not.--André the Android^(talk) 21:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, André the Android. I'm afraid not. The only circumstances in which a user-generated source like Twitter can be used are 1) when the subject of an article tweets from their verified Twitter account, in which case information can be used in the limited ways allowed for Self-published sources; or 2) in theory, if the tweet is from the verified account of a recognised expert in the field (this exception is occasionally used for blogs; I've never heard of it being used for Tweets). A tweet by a random person on the internet is never acceptable as a source. (See WP:TWITTER and WP:TWITTERREF.) --ColinFine (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me about the tweets' reliability, it is clear that unverified accounts make more mistakes (and even misspellings) than verified ones. According to this wiki's rules, I would add one of them (about André's first and only cameo) to the draft I created before and the list of Pixar film references if Pixar's official Twitter account was more aware of earlier short films Pixar has produced like The Adventures of André & Wally B. However, all Pixar films (including Luca, which it is my least favourite Pixar film to date) are overhyped so it is impossible to find reliable sources to help verify it.

I have another question related to books as sources: a few days ago I received a copy of The Art of Pixar Short Films (an art book from The Art of... series which was written by Amid Amidi and was published by Chronicle Books) as a Christmas present and I think this book is not only useful, but it can also be reliable. For example, I discovered that the fictional character is not only named after one of the protagonists of My Dinner with André, but also his name has the same prefix as the "android" term. That is why I think this book may help to verify information.--André the Android^(talk) 14:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

And one more thing: I tried searching in Wikipedia if there is an article in mainspace with any book from The Art of... series which were published by Chronicle Books (but not including any mentioned) and I find nothing more than unrelated articles (including political ones and San Francisco Chronicle). Then I tried again using the name of an art book about a feature film as an example and it only appeared in the feature film's article's "Further reading" section instead of the "References" one. It is clear that an art book like The Art of Pixar Short Films can be included in the "Further reading" section of any article, but what I still don't know is if these can be used as references, so I need to know if it is reliable enough to be included in the "References" section.--André the Android^(talk) 19:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@André the Android: We have an article for Chronicle Books that briefly mentions the series. Does the book have endnotes with sources? That can be an indicator that a book has been well researched (though conversely its absence doesn’t mean the book is unreliable). Pelagic ( messages ) – (00:21 Thu 31, AEDT) 13:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

With what you had answered, it sounds like you had answered differently although I asked a different question. But I have reread the two last sentences of your answer a few times and it seems that any installment of this series of art books is reliable according to what you have said.

Besides, I'm doubting if entries published on Animation World Network's blog section like this one counts as a reliable source. I have tried searching in Wikipedia any article that contains a blog post (from Animation World Network) for reference, but I can't find it anywhere.--André the Android^(talk) 17:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry if I was unclear about the book, André, I meant that reliability is something that you might judge from the book itself, rather than our coverage of it. But the fact we have an article about the series (which you uncovered) could help convince people that it's a serious work and not some vanity publication.

For the AWN review: Even though they call it a "blog" on the site, it's not that different from a recurring column in a magazine. Given Rick DeMott's credentials as a former content director there, I wouldn’t be too quick to dismiss it. Personally, I feel that it depends on what kind of assertion you are trying to support. BLPs and controversial topics need impeccable sources; non-controversial statements not so much. Others may disagree with me, of course. If you can source the same fact from both AWN and the book, even better. But sources supporting facts is different from sources establishing notability. The AWN piece only describes André within the context of the short film's plot.

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:15 Thu 31, AEDT) 01:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Pelagic: As this book's name suggests, the book I mentioned is notable in itself and forms part of The Art of... series. I was very surprised that this book was not mentioned anywhere in the article about this series of art books, so I will add it later.

And about the two sources, I have planned to add The Art of Pixar Short Films and the blog post from Animation World Network to the draft as references. The art book will be added as a reference in the draft's "Concept and creation" section, whereas the blog post may be included as a reference in its "Physical appearance" subsection. For the latter case, the reason is because the "Description" section is mostly unreferenced.--André the Android^(talk) 16:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I have also planned to add L'histoire de Rayman (one of the books I own currently) as a source someday in Rayman-related articles (including a "recreation" of Rayman (character), which it is currently a redirect) so I wonder if the template of book references has a language parameter. Also, I don't know if L'histoire de Rayman is as reliable as The Art of Pixar Short Films, but I know L'histoire de Rayman was published by Pix'n Love.--André the Android^(talk) 23:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help in my sandbox

I copied an entire article into my sandbox2 to see if I could insert a tall, skinny image to the right of an array of I Ching hexagrams. If you go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Charles_Juvon/sandbox2#Dual_hexagrams , my new image is on top of the hexagrams. I would appreciate some help in depreciating the white space. Charles Juvon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC) Charles Juvon (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

This looks like it has been resolved; please let us know if not or if there is any further trouble. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Charles Juvon. It's generally not a good idea to copy entire articles into your user sandbox, but if you do you probably should follow WP:ATTREQ and at least provide the name of the source article as an edit summary when you do. Wikipedia's licensing allows its article to be freely re-used, but proper attribution is necessary in most cases. There are also other problems in copying entire articles into sandboxes that in that any images in the article might be fine for the article namespace, but they might not be fine for the user namespace. Categories reserved for articles shouldn't also be used in the user namespace per WP:USERNOCAT. Finally, another problems is that people who tend to copy-and-paste entire articles into their sandboxes also seem to try to do the reverse when they've finished fixing whatever they've been fixing. This can cause problems because the version they copied might not be the same version their pasting over when they re-add the content (other editors might've edited the article in the meantime), which in turn can be an unintentional revert of other editors. So, you need to be very careful when you do this type of thing. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for those points on copying articles. Someone did try to insert the image, but the hexagrams are now split. Could someone try again? You might need to revert the last change to see how the hexagrams were originally laid out. Charles Juvon (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Is this a template that precludes placing a figure to the side? <div><ul> <li style="display: inline-table;"> {| style="width:47em; float:left;line-height:1.75em;" Charles Juvon (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Help with sandbox article

 Courtesy link: User:Blacephalon/sandbox

I want to do an article on Sirfetch'd, but I don't know what i'm doing. Can someone help? UB Blacephalon (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, @Blacephalon. The long-standing convention here is that only some Pokémon (e.g. Pikachu) are notable enough for their own articles. There was probably some intense debate about that, way back when. Sirfetch'd currently redirects to List of generation VIII Pokémon. You could treat writing up Sirfetch'd as a good practice exercise, but promoting it to main article space is unlikely to get support. Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:41 Thu 31, AEDT) 22:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Pelagic and Blacephalon, there was indeed a big debate about that question, so much so that there's now an essay named after it. See Wikipedia:Pokémon test. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Well after reading that, I do have to say while I do agree with that, Sirfetch'd has had some hype in the past. I could see if there was nothing worth writing about but a lot of people have written articles about sirfetch'd before and I want to include that. The problem is I don't know wikitext. That's why I would like someone to help me with this. UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Norm for publishing new articles?

Hi there - I'm hoping for some clarification as to what the norm is for publishing new articles as an autoconfirmed user. It seems to be that the available options are (1) go through AfC, which is quite slow and (in my experience) frustrating, or (2) just put the thing into mainspace.

I ask because I've just written a new article (would be my third). I've spent a lot of time editing articles recently, and I feel like it's good to go - meets notability requirements IMO, many refs, careful tone, etc. But I was burned before: after publishing a previous draft that I moved to mainspace a couple months ago, it was flagged for speedy deletion, and I was told "you can move [an article] to article space without review - you have the ability to do so - but that doesn't make it a sensible thing for an inexperienced user to do."

Basically - at what point is it acceptable for users to publish directly to article space, versus going through AfC? Will the admins smite me down?

Thank you! Lamacha9617 (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lamacha9617, if you can create an article that is acceptable by Wikipedia standards from the get-go, you shouldn't encounter any problems from other editors. It can be a little aggravating to wait for a reviewer to review your draft, but there are other things to work on while waiting for a review. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 05:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Thanks for responding. To clarify - are you saying that I should always be submitting through AfC? Lamacha9617 (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Lamacha9617, let me put it this way; an article going through the AfC process (and draftspace) is going to be reviewed with constructive observations that will help it match article standards. An article going directly into the main articlespace does not have this support, and are usually either moved to draftspace or nominated for deletion. As Cullen328 pointed out below, it is possible to start an article in mainspace and keep it there if you know most (if not all) of the policies and guidelines before starting your article. I would also suggest that if you're embarking on such an endeavour, that you do it in one edit, as passing editors will consider it to be "not ready" and are most likely to move it to draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 06:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lamacha9617. I have written about 100 new articles, and have never once gone through the AfC process, and have never once had an article I wrote get deleted. That's because I studied the policies and guidelines for months before beginning to edit. In fairness, AfC came along later, but it is optional for all but the newest editors. AfC is much slower, but it gives less experienced editors reasonable chances to correct obvious errors. The alternative is placing your new article before the tender mercies of the New pages patrol, who can be abrupt in their response to articles that do not comply with policies and guidelines. So the question is how thoroughly you understand the policies and guidelines, and how scrupulous you are in following them. Only you can decide, and I would never tell anyone but a paid editor that they must use AfC. Good luck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu and Cullen328 Thanks to you both for this helpful advice and further clarification. My own experience with AfC was that it's less a system for constructive feedback on an article, and more a place where you're either outright rejected or accepted, with little detail either way as to exactly which nuances of policy lead to why. Is there a place on Wikipedia where new editors can ask for clarification on policies? The teahouse, other forums? Lamacha9617 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Adding content to lists on "Today's Date"

My experience is, that everything I add to the English Wikipedia is immediately removed. Anyway, perhaps someone can add the actor Colin Morgan and the musician Grandmaster Flash to the Today's List of Births on 1 January. It seems citations etc. are required to be on that list. Sadly, I have no confidence in my own abilities to do that correctly. But, maybe others have better luck. Cheers and Happy New Year to you all :) Kmilling (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kmilling:, Grandmaster Flash is already there and I don't see why you shouldn't be able to add another person. The page is Pending-Changes Protected but that just means you've got to wait a few minutes for an addition to be waved through. --Paul ❬talk❭ 13:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Kmilling: Colin Morgan already had a reference I have copied.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

• --- Thanks PrimeHunter. Sadly, years of experience tells me, that everything I add, is quickly deleted. And I don't hold the technical code skills to modify or create entries to the English Wikipedia. Just the way it is :) Cheers, Kmilling. — Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Declined the Draft

I had created a draft Draft:Kedrick Brown (actor) few days back, but it was declined later. As according to the Reviewer, the subject is not notable, as it is not having a reliable references. So here is my question: Aren't the references from these Houston Chronicle, KMID (TV), Houston Forward Times, KMJQ, KPRC-TV, KRIV (TV) sources are reliable? If these sources are reliable, then why the page was declined? Oliveoilx (talk) 20:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Oliveoilx, the decline template, which starts "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources", is misleading. It's not enough that the sources cited be reliable. They must be reliable, and published, and independent of the subject, and must contain in-depth discussion of the subject. I haven't checked all the sources cited in Draft:Kedrick Brown (actor); but the first one, being based on what Brown said, does not qualify as independent. Maproom (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Article moved to Draft - now I can not submit?

I created the article Draft:Accountable Care Collaborative. At first, it was fine but then moved to draft space. Now I don't see a Submit for Review option. Can anyone point me to instructions? TIA Fergyman (talk) 21:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Fergyman, and welcome to the Teahouse! I've added the AfC banner at the top of the article now. In future, insert {{subst:submit}} at the top of the draft to submit it. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank You very much! I was unaware of the ability to tag - much appreciated. Fergyman (talk) 13:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Resubmissions of draft articles

I've recently had my first draft article 'declined' by the editor who reviewed it (via the AfC process). Can you tell me whether it is generally the same editor who assesses any resubmissions of the same basic article (with relevant 'improvements'). Also, during a 'Help' chat session, another editor suggested that I contact the reviewer and ask for more specific info about why the article was 'declined'. I did that yesterday, but I'd like to know whether such requests for further feedback are usually answered (this reviewer's 'Talk' page has a lot of similar requests). As you can imagine, I'd like to get the resubmission ready as soon as possible.Pomegranate Rose (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Pomegranate Rose, it's normally a different reviewer. However, all reviewers are working off of the same criteria, so if you submit without addressing the issues the first reviewer identified, it will likely be declined again. You are certainly welcome to ping the reviewer to ask for more feedback if you are unsure what their concern was. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb, thanks for the reply. It helps to know that I don't necessarily have to wait for an answer to my pinging of the original reviewer before making changes to the draft. Pomegranate Rose (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Colin Macpherson David notMD (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Prurigo nodularis

Edditing. Im trying to get a message out about a "Disease" called Nodular Prurigo. Someone keeps telling me I'm wrong and deleting it...can you help? Nicklinnear (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No. You have been attempting for more than two months to add unsourced claims that contradict the cited sources in the article. Unless you have reliable sources to support your claims (see WP:RS) it will not go in, regardless of who adds it. Meters (talk) 02:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The content you want to add about salt can only be added if you can at the same time provide reliable references to support that statement. Without that, what you add will always be reverted, and as warned on your Talk page, you will be blocked. David notMD (talk) 02:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, get a message out about a "Disease" is not what Wikipedia is here for. Please see WP:NOT. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What you are doing is rather dangerous. Although people should not be using Wikipedia for medical advice, misinformation like that in medical articles can at times cause those foolish enough to use Wikipedia directly for it to follow such anecdotal claims. Nonsense home remedies like you've been trying to add may actively harm if followed, and at other times, cause someone to opt to do something with no medical efficacy instead of following evidence-based medical treatments that do have medical efficacy. I considered blocking your account immediately for that reason, but I see you have a final warning on the issue. Anyway, don't do this again.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I need help

I am writing an article on Country Belgium but have little information on it. I have not been to Country Belgium, nor has anyone I've met. If anyone has information on Country Belgium that belong in an article, please tell me it and I will happily add it. HowDoIPikcAName (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello HowDoIPikcAName. We already have a very well developed article Belgium, and you should not to try to write a new article when we already have an existing article about the topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize for my error. Thank you for letting me know about this. HowDoIPikcAName (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

List of Inorganic compounds

Happy New Year!

I wanted to look at al the compounds in the world and noticed that a lot of the super heavy compounds we've found aren't there. Can someone help with this. I'd love to help! UB Blacephalon (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Blacephalon, and Happy New Year to you too. I doubt whether all those compounds are notable, but I'm sure some of them will be. WikiProject Chemistry might be a good place to discuss this. --ColinFine (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

So do I just do this over there? UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Who made the first edit in 2021

based on UTC+0, after 00:00 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 07:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jeromi Mikhael. The first was Special:Diff/997529719 by 71.144.116.75. The last in 2020 was Special:Diff/997529718. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeromi Mikhael: Looking more closely, the time stamps actually alternated a little between 23:59 and 00:00, maybe due to different servers or processing times. Special:Diff/997529717 by TheMadDesperado has the lowest revision ID. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter:, thanks for your research. I've notified the user with a thanks and wikilove. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael ^(marhata) 09:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! What does this mean? This isn’t about the first edit on ALL of WP, right? TheMadDesperado (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@TheMadDesperado: The first in the English Wikipedia. We don't have an easy way to compare to other Wikipedia languages with separate logs and revision ID's. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: @Jeromi Mikhael: Wow!!! Thanks for doing this - now I’ll have a story to tell the grandkids lol! TheMadDesperado (talk) 18:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TheMadDesperado, worth the shot. Not the "I used to go to school waking up at 2am, passing 2 forests, jumping off of one cliff, passing a thunderstorm, facing Nazi soldiers, hiking a mountain, crossing no-man's land, for 5 hours" BS. GeraldWL 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

san francisco bay discovery site

Re: STAMP

Three U.S. Postage stamps (Scott nos. 400, 400A, & 404: 10ct. yellow/orange) show the discovery of SF Bay from Sweeny Ridge by the Portola Expedition. 2601:647:CA00:8570:818A:8953:F982:3D8F (talk) 10:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse. You do not make clear what is your question about editing Wikipedia. Are you proposing something to be added to an article, perhaps postage stamp? If so, the best thing is to make a suggestion at the talk page Talk:postage stamp, specifying exactly what you think should be added to the article (and where), and citing a reliable published source for the information. --ColinFine (talk) 11:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Presumably, the OP is suggesting that the information be added to San Francisco Bay Discovery Site. The OP is certainly welcome to add it himself or herself. Deor (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite

I’m new and grateful for your invite. My background is studies of religion and I’d love tips on articles that need improving. Wikipedia seems like a beacon of hope in an age of internet giants that have lost their soul. Thank you. BuckyRodgers (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, BuckyRodgers: welcome to the Teahouse, and Happy New Year. Thank you for your hopeful words about Wikipedia: I think many editors here share your view. I suggest you get involved with WikiProject Religion. --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

ColinFine, *holy choir*, my halo. GeraldWL 17:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do if I think that a person is insisting in unfairly editing his own Wikipedia page?

Hi there. Some time ago I stumbled upon Alexander Amini's page and I found it quite self-promoting. I thus added some templates and wrote in the talk page. A new user, Mstewart94 reverted my edits (see again the talk page). He/she supported his/her action by pointing to similar Wikipedia pages, such as Aisling_Judge and Abdusalam Abubakar.

Frankly, I only felt more concerned by looking at the latter pages: they start by claiming that the person is a scientist, but the page fails to provide evidence for that statement besides the fact that the person won some school students' competition and attended university. Firstly, I can't restrain from voicing my opinion that not even a PhD appears sufficient to claim the title of "scientist"; instead, a certain impact on the scientific community should be required, and such impact should be testified by specific discoveries or a number of scientific publications in respected venues. Secondly, the above school students' competition (which seems to be the main support for the above persons' notability), namely the Young_Scientist_and_Technology_Exhibition, is also flagged with the Template:More_citations_needed.

To conclude, I fear that the above pages are exaggerating the relevance of the above persons as scientists, and accepting those pages as they are allows any professional scientist to have the right to its own Wikipedia page. My question is, if there is anything I can do about it besides stating my opinion in the respective talk pages. Natematic (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

This looks like a good call. I've restored the templates. "Mstewart94" is a new, inexperienced, single-topic editor (except for an edit to a closely-related topic), and is probably the subject themselves (which is pretty close to forbidden on Wikipedia: WP:COI) or someone closely related. We can let others decide the outcome. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Natematic: I'll also mention that the idea of ... any professional scientist to have the right to its own Wikipedia page is fundamentally flawed. Nobody has a right to their own Wikipedia page. Articles are not for the benefit of their subjects at all. These are encyclopedia articles, for the benefit of the encyclopedia itself as a body of knowledge, and its readers. Justifying the existence of a page by pointing to other pages that exist (perhaps incorrectly) is generally not a valid argument (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). General notability guidelines are at WP:GNG and there are type-specific guidelines, too (e.g. WP:NSCIENTIST). If improper articles exist, it's only because editors were not always as good at keeping out sub-standard content and haven't gotten around to either improving or removing those articles yet. Tagging the deficiencies is a good starting point. WP:DELETION describes the deletion policy and procedures. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Stub template location

Hello. What is the exact place of a stub template in an article? (Specifically an association football biography.) I know that if there is an external links section, it goes underneath the links there somewhere... and if there is no external links section, then it goes under the references. But basicaly on Germain Sanou my edit was reverted about stub template location and I would like clarification of where the correct spot for that template on that page should be. Plus, is there a required number of spaces betweeen something above the stub template? Because I remember being told by an editor that stub templates need two extra spaces above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Paul Vaurie (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie. MOS:ORDER says stub templates at the end after categories. WP:STUBSPACING says "Leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it. "PrimeHunter (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter: Alright. So that means it goes after the categories and two space between the categories and the stub template? Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Yes. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Article rejected

Rejection

My wikipedia article was rejected because it 'read more like a magazine article'. Can you advise how rectify this Brenda P. Hall (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brenda P. Hall: No offense, but it would be useful if you told us what article. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: User:Brenda P. Hall/sandbox. Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

It was a biographical article about the musicologist, conductor, writer and broadcaster, Michael Hall. I assume that as it has been rejected you won't be able to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall (talk • contribs) 15:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Brenda P. Hall,

As a rule on Wikipedia, if you can see it, everyone can. But first, judging by your username, is there a conflict of interest here? If so then it'd be best to declare that before doing anything else - but it shouldn't in of itself prevent getting the article accepted.

To get an idea of encyclopaedic tone a good place to start is looking at other articles on a similar topic or to read the manual of style. At the very least, you'll notice that the majority of articles start with "X is a Y" and go from there.

--Paul ❬talk❭ 15:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brenda P. Hall: when using other articles as a template, please make sure you choose from our best or nearly best. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful advice. Yes, I didn't see the coi rule but will declare the interest and will try to amend the style of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenda P. Hall (talk • contribs) 12:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Portrait of spouse in biographical article?

For about 12 years now, I have been under the impression that as a general rule we do not add a solo portrait photo of somebody's husband or wife to a biographical article, yet I see more and more exceptions being made. Is there policy on this anywhere? In case of multiple marriages, how many portraits can we add? Does the lack or existence of independent notability of a spouse enter into it? I need to find out if I'm right or wrong in continuing to remove such portraits. Happy New Year! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC) SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse SergeWoodzing. Here's my take, but it's not one based on any policy that I can cite (I looked, but couldn't find see anything), though modern BLPs aren't really my thing:

Images should only ever be added if they add to the encyclopaedic content of an article. An article about a notable person that states their spouse is also a notable person (with citations to verify this) would be OK to contain an image of that person, providing it does not add unduly to the content. i.e. a long article with a balance of other images might merit one being added of that person's spouse if their relationship is itself significant. e.g. it's ongoing and the article goes into some detail of their relationship/collaboration etc. A short article about person A probably ought not to have an image of person B as their spouse, but would only merit a plain wikilink. For older articles about women, it might well be that we don't have any images of them, so one of a notable male spouse might help add content - especially if, as was often the case over 100 years ago the man received most of the credit for the woman's work. As always, it's a careful balance, based upon consensus. You didn't link to any examples you've seen, though I see you've had a disagreement over the inclusion of Robbie Williams' wife on his page. Personally, I think there's no imbalance created by adding that image, so would have kept it as adding to the encyclopaedic nature of the article. (If you do find there's a policy on this, please come back and tell us, or ping me, as it would be a helpful thing for me to be aware of, too). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! There is a free image of the Williams couple together. I think that will solve the problem there. In any case, since his wife has an article of her own, it seemed to me that the same portrait of her in his article was too much. I definitely do not agree with you about substituting an unaccessible or non-existent the photo of a woman with one of her husband in an article about her, regardless of how much credit he may or may not have stolen from her. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

wiki page doubt

what is the reason? my bad genius tamilan page is not available if search the google Bad genius tamilan (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

We don't let search engines index userpages. Also, Wikipedia is not a web host so I've tagged it for deletion. Pahunkat (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Bad genius tamilan Pinging. Pahunkat (talk) 16:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Advice on improving a draft

I wrote a draft for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dan_Feyer

Seems to me this person is notable, in that they are the 8-time American crossword champion. Various other equally-notable figures in the crossword-world have their own wikipedia pages, see highlighted individuals in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Crossword_Puzzle_Tournament

It was sent back to draftspace with message:

> 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).

To me it seems that winning the top competition in a relatively popular activity 8 times is notable on its own, hence I wrote the article. The subject has an individual profile in the New York Times and their competition wins get coverage in the NYT repeatedly, which again seems impressive to me. But I don't have strong feelings about this, if it's collectively felt that the subject doesn't meet notability criteria, fine by me. I'm just a little unclear if I did something wrong in how I drafted or presented the article -- for example, I did not include the references "in order of relevance", perhaps that was wrong.

Anyway, any advice or guidance much appreciated. Davidoaye (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(pinging Robert McClenon) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Davidoaye - First, you didn't do anything wrong. Second, I welcome the comments of other experienced editors here. If other editors think that he is notable, or that he is probably notable, I will accept the article. But I would like their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure! And thanks for the feedback. A question: I was planning for this to be the first of several pages on various people in the crossword world, but if Feyer isn't notable (or is at best boderline-notable) certainly none of the others I wanted to cover would be. I realise this is surely wading into a long discussion among experienced editors but... I guess I'd love to know whether one component here is about how notable crosswords themselves are considered to be? I basically thought anyone who won the biggest crossword championship even once would count as notable, but if that's not the case (absent other factors / notability in the media / etc) I won't even try to write those other pages! Davidoaye (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose a question could be put - is every past winner of American Crossword Puzzle Tournament article-worthy? Or are other activities needed to establish notability? David notMD (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

article stuck in the sand box

I have a NEW page for Wikipedia and I'm a first-timer so I put all the info in my sandbox. I'm trying to have it 'reviewed for publication' or just publish it. When I click on either, it returns me to a 'create' page and not a submitted for review or published. Ant help is welcome! Doo271 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Doo271, and welcome to the Teahouse! If you click on the 'submit this draft for review' button, it will be reviewed by experienced editors for inclusion on Wikipedia. However, I would strongly suggest you add some references to the draft in your sandbox before submitting, as you need to show that the subject qualifies for an article and meets WP:GNG by demonstrating it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Nav Boxes

I've been working at the WikiProject Podcasting and was recently introduced to Navigation Boxes, but I was a little unclear on which articles should be given which Navigation Boxes. At the WikiProject main page we have a "Podcasting" template that redirects to Web syndication and another template called Aggregators. I was mostly confused on whether "Web Syndication" should really be added to any and all podcast articles when it appears that there was some intention for a separate template to be made specifically for podcasts (perhaps using the redirect is okay), and if I'm not putting "Web Syndication" at the bottom of every podcast article then where should I put it? I assume that the "Aggregators" template should be placed at the bottom of all podcasting apps or websites, but I find it strange that the title at the top says "News Aggregators" instead of just "Aggregators" or more specifically "Podcast Aggregators". While looking around I also found Template:Podcast distribution platforms, which wasn't even listed at the WikiProject.

I guess my question is: "What is the appropriate usage of these nav boxes?", but any answers that point me in the right direction are welcome.

I asked a similar question with some examples a few days ago at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Podcasting#Authority_Control_&_Navigation_Boxes. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

What to do when a source is probably going away

NSFWCORP is being acquired and their brand is going away.

The NSFWCORP brand and voice will be going away, and everything will now be under the Pando brand.

— Sarah Lacy, https://pando.com/2013/11/25/pandodaily-acquires-nsfwcorp-to-double-down-on-investigative-reporting/

insource:NSFWCORP It's used in a few places, but I'm not sure exactly what to do. These links are probably going to die soon. Jdphenix (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Jdphenix, and welcome to the Teahouse! Save the links in the web archive - [2]. Add the archive link as a parameter of the reference and we'll be able to use it as a reference even if the site gets taken down. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

N.B. I think their site might be up to stay, the acquisition appears to have happened 7 years ago. Pahunkat (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've archived all the URLs anyway. Pahunkat (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Jdphenix, for future reference, you can use the external tool "Fix dead links" on any article's history to try and salvage archived versions of dead links. More information can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 00:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both. Very helpful. Jdphenix (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

New User Editing

A new user posted a jibberish message on my user talk page. Is this a common problem and what should I do? I assume I can undo their edit. The username is Samuel James Ossa Vanterpool. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Yes, you can undo it. You can leave a message on that user's talk page asking them to use the sandbox for test edits. RudolfRed (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant You mean you've never heard of a "Jgjghvhvjvjbjhb"? Shame on you.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright violation

Can I modify an article to make it copyright-free if it contains copyrighted information? 1 January 2021 (UTC) SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Welcome to Wikpedia. You are welcome to edit any article to make it better. If someone disagrees, they will undo your edit and then you can discuss it to get consensus. See WP:BRD about that. For guidance on copyright issues, see WP:COPYVIO. RudolfRed (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

EU does allow zero VAT rates, contrary to article on tampon tax

I object to this article on "Tampon tax".

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

It says, wrongly, "is the lowest rate possible under the European Union's value added tax law, which as of 2015 does not allow zero rates".

What about this?

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/vat/how_vat_works/rates/vat_rates_en.pdf

Published by the European Commission, it begins,

"Cases where the zero rate is applied to consumption in the legislation of the Member States (Title VIII, Chapter 4 of the VAT directive 2006/112/EC)

BELGIUM 1. Certain recuperation substances and recuperation products. 2. Raw furskins of rabbits and hares.

DENMARK Newspapers, including newspapers delivered electronically, which are usually published at least once a month" Philjones573 (talk) 23:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Philjones573, and welcome to the Teahouse. Asking specific questions about individual articles here at the Teahouse is not usually very productive: it's better to ask (or discuss) on the Talk page of the relevant article. Secondly, what you are doing is making an argument yourself: you may be right (I haven't looked), but what you are doing is original research, which is not allowed in Wikipedia. If the statement you are objecting to does not cite a reliable source, then you can simply remove it (make sure you explain in the edit summary, so this won't look like a random deletion). If it is supported by a reliable source, then it's more difficult. If you can find a reliablie secondary source that supports your view, then probably the article should mention both interpretations, unless a consensus of editors decides that the weight lies with one or other view. But I'm afraid that if the only secondary sources you can find disagree with your interpretation, then there's nothing you can do here, because Wikipedia works with verifiability, not truth|. --ColinFine (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

SPI for blocked users returning as IP accounts

Hello Teahousians. Lately I have noticed several blocked users that just keep editing using their IP address. I appreciate that Wikipedia thinks there are privacy issues with publicly linking an account to an IP address, but this gives the SPI a big disadvantage by leaving out helpful evidence. So is there a way that the CheckUser can be requested and done privately perhaps? MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: I am not an expert in this area, but editing while blocked is block evasion which is not allowed, and per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Evasion_and_enforcement the IP should be blocked. I think that means you could make a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Quick_CheckUser_requests to validate if the IP address is associated with the blocked account. RudolfRed (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. I had a look at Quick_CheckUser_requests and it doesn't mention linking an IP to a blocked user as one of the examples, so hopefully someone familiar with this stuff can chip in please? Cheers, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 22:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@MrsSnoozyTurtle: This is indeed tricky. Checkusers are hardly ever going to link accounts with IP addresses. There's a few exceptions, such as when the link has already been made public, but the exceptions are rare. Quick CU is therefore not the place. Instead, I can think of three options. One is to create a SPI report in the name of the blocked account, pointing to the connectuon between the IPs and accounts. Any patrolling admin can use the duck test. The second is to find another way to ask any admin(s) if the IPs should be blocked. In both these cases it can be useful to loop a checkuser into the request, but they are not going to provide any written response to it (that is they may, or may not, check the link and/or just block the IPs without any comment). The third option, and IMO least appetising for the situation you describe, is to email a checkuser. Again, don't expect a response. Hopefully that's useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi zzuuzz. Thanks for your help with this. It is quite ironic and frustrating that Wiki policies give an advantage to blocked users who further break the rules by then editing with their IP!

Sometimes the Edit History isn't enough on its own to be certain and a CU would be helpful, so I'll give option 2 a try. I've tried emailing Checkusers in the past, but there was no response or action. Thanks for laying out the 3 options for me, it is really helpful. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I insert templates in articles or to be specific how do you put user boxes on your user page?

How do you insert userboxes? I am sorry I am new to Wikipedia so I don't understand well.

ValeAliz (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)ValeAliz ValeAliz (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ValeAliz, and welcome to the Teahouse. Generally, templates are inserted by putting the name of the template between double curly brackets, with their jparameters separate by pipes ('|'). If you look at User:ColinFine, you'll see at the top {{Babel|en|fr-2|cy-1|de-1|sv-1|jbo-1}}, which is an invocation of the userbox Template:Babel. At the end there's an invocation of a general purpose Template:userbox. If you go to those template pages I've just linked, you'll see the documentation for using them. --ColinFine (talk) 23:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@ValeAliz: Welcome to Wikipedia. When you find a userbox that you want to use, just copy the code onto your user page. For example, Wikipedia:Userboxes/Automobiles. If you wanted to put the Gearhead box on your user page, you would open your user page for editing, and then copy/paste {{User:Nefariousopus/Userboxes/Gearhead}} onto your user page and then save it using the "Publish" button. Hope this helps! RudolfRed (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you!This helped me a lot!ValeAliz (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)ValeAliz

Citation for lecture

Hiya,

I have been trying to clear up the references in Nicanor Austriaco, and am wondering how to find a reference for the claim that the subject of the article discussed certain topics in a lecture. There was a citation to a YouTube video of the subject giving a lecture, but this seems like a primary source and thus original research.

I am struggling to find documentation for the lecture series - does anyone have any tips on how to deal with this statement? Should it be removed altogether? Currently I have tagged it "citation needed". Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 23:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ain. Use of Primary sources is not ipso facto original research. Primary sources must be used carefully, are limited in use, and do nothing to demonstrate the notability of the topic. One aspect of their use we need to be careful of—where original research often gets involved in the area—is when someone is interpreting a primary source's meaning, or attempting to use a primary source's interpretation, but one thing they are quite perfect for is verifying that a subject said what they are quoted or said to have said, which your post above indicates was the type of use. That is directly in the realm of a "straightforward, descriptive statement of fact". Whether content like that belongs in a particular article, as a matter of editorial discretion, is another matter. But if the use was as you say; you want to keep in the content; and there's no secondary source for verification, the citation to the primary source is fine, and should be returned. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

New User Article

Hello My Wikipedia Family 🤗 I hope all is well, could anyone assist me by reviewing my simple non promotional article about a musician I'm writing?

Please don't mark my article for deletion instead give me constructive criticism that could help me better the article as a whole.

I'm here to learn and contribute to the community not to break down, pleade help me help everyone 🙂 MasterKP19 (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@MasterKP19: Welcome to Wikipeida. First, it would be a big help to tell us which article you are referring to. Is it Bjorn_Martin? If so, then the next step you need to do is add referrences, as currently there are none. Check out WP:REFB for how to do this. RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Another editor has moved the article to Draft:Bjorn_Martin, to avoid it getting deleted. RudolfRed (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain where the references should be added exactly? (MasterKP19 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC))

MasterKP19, the link RudolfRed provided, WP:REFB, explains where references need to be added. WP:NMUSIC explains what you need to establish with them in order for the page to deemed notable and accepted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the article a little bit but it probably should be prodded. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As this new editor has asked for help, perhaps give some time rather than Speedy deletion or Proposed deletion so fast. David notMD (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Youtube and Apple music are not reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@MasterKP19: Please read WP:YFA. The order of the steps is particularly important, especially gathering your references before writing anything, first those that demonstrate notability, and then additionally any references that you will summarize to form the article.

As it stands now, you have provided three references that are not usable, so you have "built a house with no foundation". Find three published, independent, reliable sources (e.g., newspaper or magazine articles) that discuss the subject (Bjorn Martin) at length – at least a paragraph or two about him, not just passing mentions. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 05:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MasterKP19. I have moved the page back to the draft namespace once again. Please take in my edit summary:

"Moving this back once again as a favor to creator (for a second & last time). No Indication of importance or significance. If this stays in the mainspace it will simply be deleted under CSD A7. If this is a notable subject you need to demonstrate that, by citing reliable, secondary, independent sources".

If those sources exist, cite them and then move it back. If they don't, sorry, there's nothing that can be done and this will be deleted sooner or later. But I am trying to give you the breathing space to fix the issue, if it can be fixed, before it's deleted out of hand. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk)

What is the point of enabling editors to provide new information, if they are deleted and called "Spam" without any due process ?

I get that I'm SPA, I was trying to update the NFT World to a new use case of this technology, so why does my edit get deleted and called "Spam" without first being investigated or myself to be contacted to verify the edit ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=985223340&oldid=985011037

I was trying to make a informed post about what is capable and for people to be informed, thought that was the point of Wikipedia.

Is further proof required ?

https://emblem.finance/nft?id=327289 https://etherscan.io/tx/0x14cfea08df942fe8a4b7df6e2e092e9b24d5c79e6be8e9a31d2a7dc161a89567 https://opensea.io/assets/0x82c7a8f707110f5fbb16184a5933e9f78a34c6ab/327289 As above the Bitcoin/Ethereum addresses within the NFT contains Fungible Tokens.

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1HNmmzNkbjSCfTNJycuRsosyi34aV9CeGp https://etherscan.io/address/0xc51bD93c41aD07fc49F2DE7264501E3CF44d0BfA#tokentxns

https://desktopcommando.medium.com/what-is-emblemvault-14aaaff92a20 DesktopCommando (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

DesktopCommando, the diff shows an IP's edit being undone, not yours. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 03:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies after seeing how the 'compare selected revision' works it show's user: Vicwd moving it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=995521773&oldid=995521123) and user: Hidden Lemon deleting it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Non-fungible_token&type=revision&diff=995822205&oldid=995817950) DesktopCommando (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

It looks as though my editorial is being removed due to user: Vicwd's contribution, may I please re-apply my submission ? DesktopCommando (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, you added one reference, linking to circuitsofvalue.com. That, and the sentence supported by the link, were removed as part of a larger effort to clean up inapproprite sources and promotion from the article, not because they were added by a new user, and not because the sentence+source had been moved to a different part of the article. circuitsofvalue.com does not seem to meet Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources, and it violates the external links guideline, so it would not be meaningful to restore it to the article. I don't have any opinion about the links you posted above. If you disagree about the usefulness of the circuitsofvalue site or have other comments, the best place to post them would be the article's talk page, Talk:Non-fungible_token. (Keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to showcase cutting-edge development, though.) Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Circuits of value (COVAL) is the Emblemvault's cryptocurrency "owner", its the first of its kind, the article was a means of including what capabilities an NFT can achieve in order to confirm to WP:PURPOSE "in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style"." the only linkable page was the webpage, how do other newly emerging additions then appear, if there is no first ? You say its "cutting edge development" Wikipedia's own explanation of that it is a "term in advertising and marketing" this is not intended as the case, if you feel this is true then maybe you should delete half of Wikipedia's content including the current NFT contents with regards to Cryptokitties, Rare Pepes, Age of chains ...etc, your issue with the WP:RS "articles should be based on reliable, published sources" WP:SOURCE "The piece of work itself (the article, book)" this is the website www.circuitsofvalue.com, yes its not a book, yet WP:AFFILIATE seems to allow content that "inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages" it does ask for published articles how about this https://blog.goodaudience.com/the-king-of-atomic-swaps-c9becff072aa, or even a blockchain entry that unlike Wikipedia cannot be edited https://etherscan.io/tx/0x14cfea08df942fe8a4b7df6e2e092e9b24d5c79e6be8e9a31d2a7dc161a89567 the blockchain transaction shows that it has been minted and is verifiable DesktopCommando (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DesktopCommando. Anything that is "the first of its kind" is likely to be TOOSOON to figure in Wikipedia. You ask "How do other newly emerging additions then appear?" The answer is "Not in Wikipedia". Wikipedia is only interested in things that independent reliable sources have already been written about. If the only source for something is its own website, then it is not notable, and it is hard to see how it can be regarded as a reliable source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• DesktopCommando Wikipedia is not a government that is required to provide "due process". It has rules and policies to guide its content, just as you have rules and policies regarding conduct in your residence and you don't have to provide for a process for your guests to challenge those rules. That doesn't mean Wikipedia does not try to be fair, which is why there are talk pages to discuss issues of concern and dispute. I will add that Wikipedia is not for merely providing information(a common misconception). It is for summarizing what independent reliable sources say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How to report for deletion

I saw useless one draft page that is about to delete from Wiki, it was already in draft. How can I report to ask to delete by editor. Thank you. Sorry, this is my very first time in Wiki. Burmese King (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Burmese King, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's best to leave 'useless' drafts alone and in 6 months they'll be deleted from Wikipedia by the G13 speedy deletion criterion. If the draft is yours, then you can tag it for deletion using {{db-g7}}. However, deletion of this draft will not stop the Sockpuppet Investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nyiminsan as administrators can still view most deleted pages. Thanks, Pahunkat (talk) 09:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) The page I requested to make deletion is duplicated topic for YangonThu Michelle and it's already deleted. I used {{db-g7}}. I'm helping the community.

Why was my article declined ( Nikhita Khan Rhino Centre)

Why was my article declined? Did it violate any copyright policies?Did it not have any reliable sources? Ishaan bommakanti 6548 (talk) 07:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ishaan bommakanti 6548, you can see it at the page. It's because there's no reliable sources. GeraldWL 07:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How can I add reliable sources?

I have two questions,What are reliable sources and how can we add them? And what are reliable sources for? Ishaan bommakanti 6548 (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Ishaan bommakanti 6548, there's more information over at WP:EASYREFBEGIN as to how to cite reliable sources. They are needed to allow other readers to verify that the information being cited can be trusted to a degree. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 🎄Happy Holidays!⛄ 08:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Reason why contribution was declined

Reason why contribution was declined Good day,

I made a contribution on a page where I added additional information about Music Video. I can't find the reason or still don't understand why my contribution to a LINK was declined.

Looking forward to hear from you please. Kayworld009 (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: about Auld Lang Syne. Per discussions on the Talk page of the article, in the Archives (older discussions), there have been debates about including specific information about notable performances. The consensus is that there are so many contenders, that better for the article to not have a list. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Need opinion for the last section of Bhutanese Nepali Literature

Hey, Look at the last section of the Bhutanese Nepali Literature wikipage. Doesn't it sound promoting the website? Or, it could be "the real information and is not supposed to be changed"? I'm unsure. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 08:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is what we call a WP:SPAMLINK and should be deleted. Please see Wikipedia:External Links for details of the type of link it is appropriate to include. The "Bibliography" section is also dubious, as it appears to promote just two titles without stating why they are specially relevant to the topic.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira, alright, thanks. Changing it then. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 16:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

copy of ap picture in the Indianapolis Business Journal Dec 11, 2020 issue.

FYI

 – Heading refactored by Tenryuu, moved rest of it into body below.

Greetings, and happy new year to you all. I am looking to request a copy of a front page picture in Indianapolis Business Journal on Dec 11,2020. It is the picture on front page of Organization Day in the Indiana House Statehouse Chamber. Our son is an employee of the Republican Party of Indiana, and he is in the picture. My husband and I would like to respectfully ask if we might get a copy of the picture, please? Thank

 2600:1700:5F50:9750:E429:DD40:D3A1:1554 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

IP editor, you should probably contact the Indianapolis Business Journal, as they would hold the rights (or properly direct you to whoever holds them) to the picture. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 11:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's in this article. You can also order reprints here. For future reference, questions like this are better posted at the Reference Desk. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

About warning an IP

An IP did some unconstructive edit and I reverted it. When I was going to give a warning template, I noticed it was issued a level 2 warning by an editor in December 27. So what level of warning should I give it now? Kajjul (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Kajjul Level 1. Warning levels generally reset each month, so that people don't have stuff they did months ago hanging around their neck. And also after almost a week, it's entirely possible that it's not the same person behind that IP. However, you can of course just skip a level if the offence was particularly egregious. --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help!Kajjul (talk) 13:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I create this page on wikipedia? "Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South"

Can I create a page about "Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South" on wikipedia? I came across this on google trending topics 223.229.238.9 (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

If you can find reliable, published sources that are independent of Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South treat Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South in depth, you can use (and of course cite) those sources to create Draft:Dadasaheb Phalke Awards South. But if you can't find them, you'll be wasting your time. -- Hoary (talk) 12:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Before trying to edit that draft, it would be a good idea to read this information. There are quite a few awards trying to capitalise on the name "Dadasaheb Phalke Award" (the original is prestigious but the copycat awards are not). That doesn't mean that none of the other awards could become notable, but any sources would have to be explicitly about that award (the Awards South one, in this case), and not about the original. Also keep in mind that just because an award has recipients who are notable, it does not automatically make the award notable – I could set up the Bonadea Awards and send them out willy-nilly to ten celebrities, but that wouldn't make the Bonadea Awards notable. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: You missed the important part of the awards scam "process" – you would want to charge the celebrities for the announcement, attending the ceremony, and even the bleeping award itself. I'll organize it for 10%. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Antikult why I cannot publish the voice?

hi, why i cannot post my ANTIKULT voice? I just texted that I have a conflit of interest cuz I knew them personally. And now I wanted to write on Waiki the band I find out so I started from this great band. Is it so hard? Alison Krebs (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Antikult

Hi Alison Krebs - you've already made a start on your draft article. You'll need to add some reliable sources before you hit submit, but apart from that what specific trouble are you having? --Paul ❬talk❭ 12:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Alison Krebs: yes, sucessfully creating a new article about somethign on Wikipedia is hard, in fact, its one of the hardest tasks one can start on Wikipedia. And having a conflict of interest does not make things easier... As for Draft:Antikult, drafts are not automatically resubmitted, you have to use the resubmit button. However, if you were to resubmit it now, it would likely be declined, because it is currently unverifyable. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In particular, you need to say who "[defined them] as one of the best world grind/jazzcore bands", and in which publication this definition may be read. (And by "best world", do you perhaps mean "world's best"?) -- Hoary (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

But if I added link of pages with records companies who published band works! the comment under pic was by Apocalix Distro Label (the page of the Distro Label is existing an active on FB). It seems that here those who have time to let a pc wizard publish fakes news can have success and real supporter8experts of band, especially in the underground, have no chances for them and for the band to be known!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Krebs (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alison Krebs, don't forget that Wikipedia is not the place for you to promote bands that you like. That said, I think it's entirely possible that Wikipedia could have an article on Antikult, if you can find just a few sources independent of the subject then you'd be able to establish notability and have some encyclopaedic content. --Paul ❬talk❭ 16:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not promoting bands that I like, I like a bands that are known in the underground and I think that any kinda band and style culturally interesting should be in an Encyclopedia and should be spread around. I'm not a pc programmer but here seems that if you are not focused on that techs it's all but not an open instrument for develop art and culture. I just wanted put some artistical high value bands here. More tha link and pages of who wrote or published cd, vinyls, cassette and so on I can't do. It should be do a step by step easy path to who wants publish voices with the clear limits and needs. Anyway,,here was not possible post pics done by myself, of my own, I'm sad and since here all is complicated I think I will abandon this experience. Hope for great artist and innovative players that somebody else will be more prepared than me! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alison Krebs (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you've found editing wikipedia too complex. We do try to welcome articles on all notable topics, and we do have some pretty great articles about various bands - I very rarely edit anything IT related I don't have any 'tech skills' beyond Excel but I've always found Wikipedia pretty welcoming. I think the process for introducing a new article is about as step-by-step as it can be, I don't know how it could be simplified. But your draft will stick around for a few months if you want to pick it up again. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alison Krebs: The very nature of "underground" is that it is not written about in reliable sources. Such artists become popular by word-of-mouth, social media, etc., right? Unfortunately, that is incompatible with Wikipedia's standards and purpose, which is not to promote anything (no matter how good), but instead to summarize what reliable sources have written about in some detail and independently (without prompting by the subject). Anything connected with the band, like their publicist, commercial (even "indy") websites, record labels, etc., are all disqualified. We need someone like Rolling Stone or Variety or even the entertainment section of newspapers or local television news programs, etc., to have written about the subject. That makes it notable for Wikipedia.

Also, just a suggestion: attacking your fellow volunteer editors for carefully upholding our community standards is not the proper response, nor the way to get further help, from those who have already spent significant time trying to help you. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 21:46, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alison Krebs: Your only attempt at submitting your draft was here [3]] where you submitted a blank page which was declined of course. Theroadislong (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Alison Krebs: You might have a look at other articles about relevant bands, like the B-class (an above-average quality) Napalm Death as an example of what kind of sources that editors have found to be appropriate, article contents, style, etc.. Other B-class articles of interest to WikiProject Metal are listed here. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to upload a logo in a Wikipedia article but I'm not sure how to do it

I can download the logo from a website and upload it in the Wikipedia article but I'm not sure if that's the right way to do because of copyright issues(I'm not sure if the logo is copyrighted). Can someone please guide me? Dfsibun (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dfsibun: Which article and which website are you talking about? Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:03, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_Grammar_School Website: https://www.jgswm.in/ Dfsibun (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Dfsibun: As far as copyright goes, the Image does not appear to be licensed under a free license or be in the public domain, meaning we can only use it under fair use. I recommend that you use the upload wizard to upload images. As for the formula, You want to select "This is a copyrighted, non-free work, but I believe it is Fair Use." followed by "This is a logo of an organization, company, brand, etc." remember to fill in all the boxes marked with * Victor Schmidt (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: I've uploaded the image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_of_Johnson_Grammar_School_(CBSE)_with_motto_and_year_of_establishment.png#filelinks Is there any rule which I must follow while using this image in Wikipedia? Dfsibun (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) @Victor Schmidt and Dfsibun: That is certainly good advice for most images we see users questioning about uploading. In this case, though, I think the image does not meet threshold of originality for copyright protection, and thus is eligible for upload to the Wikimedia Commons, to be marked there with {{PD-textlogo}}. To expand on that slightly, images that consist "only of simple geometric shapes or text" are not considered original enough to enjoy copyright protection under United States law, and so if meeting that description, are in the public domain by default. Other countries have similar doctrines. In this case, India's doctrine has been listed at Commons:Threshold of originality#India as similar the the U.S.'s ("Modicum of Creativity"), and so logos of companies based in India within this set are permitted to be uploaded there as in the public domain. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Replacing wrong Indian High Commission Photo on India Malta Relations.

1) I wish to replace the wrong photo of the Indian High Commission in Malta with the right one. Please help in easy steps.

I see that there are currently three pictures in the Wikimedia Commons category "Consulate of India, Malta". I presume that you wish to add another such image but perhaps of a new building. The steps for uploading pictures are fairly easy if you follow the Upload Wizard at "the relevant Commons page".. The crucial step is that you must be able to assign a license (usually CC BY-SA 4.0 — see Commons Help pages), which means in practice that you took the picture yourself or have evidence that the picture you wish to use is available under such a license. Please provide more details so I or another editor can help further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

2) I am having difficulty adding References in Indian Foreign aid article and I need help. Sbali9 (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

adding to or changing a relative's entry

Alexander Orenstein was my great-uncle. I found one error in the listing and could add far more material, though this might interest almost nobody. Even it would be valuable, I have no idea how to do it. K3amu (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps Alexander Jeremiah Orenstein. (If not, then which article?) David notMD (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

How do I get a page to write an article.

 2001:BB6:29BC:5E58:3C92:8E24:C2C9:AADE (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time, effort, and practice. Many new users who dive right in without experience in general editing often end up disappointed and with hurt feelings when their work that they spent hours on is rejected. I don't want you to have bad feelings, so I'd suggest that you first spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. If you create an account, you can use a new user tutorial that will help you learn more about Wikipedia.

If you still wish to create a new article despite this cautioning, you should first read Your First Article and then use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor before it is formally placed in the encyclopedia. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Do also consider registering an account, which will make communication with other editors (a necessary part of the collaborative process here) possible. It also lets you set your preferences for many things and gives you access to many helpful gadgets and tools. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 01:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Banner Shell Usage

I was curious about the Banner Shell usage (Template:WikiProject banner shell). Specifically whether it's standard convention to include banners that are not wikiprojects in the shell. For instance, editing history banners like whether the article had been listed or delisted as good article, merge history, and Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignments. If these aren't supposed to be included then is there an alternative shell for these types of banners. Also, in general, what is the organizing priority of all these banners? Like what should be at the top and how should things be ordered below. Is it just oldest to newest? TipsyElephant (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan

I added this author because of her influential books. In fact, one of her books, The End of the Certain World has it's own wiki article. Yet the author was declined by the moderator asking if the author has any awards? The NYTimes and Wash post have done articles on this author and do not understand what else I should do to bolster the article. Any advice is appreciated! Fergyman (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Nancy Thorndike Greenspan has refs, but for reviews of books she has written, not about her. And Wikipedia dos not count interviews toward establishing notability. Search for published content about her. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Fergyman, and welcome to the Teahouse. 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) 17:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Difference between citations, sources and footnotes

Hello and thank you for the welcome! In attempting to edit / update an article about myself that was originally contributed a few years ago by an acquaintance, I could not easily grasp the distinction (if any) between links, sources, references and footnotes.

Is there a succinct document somewhere that a) makes the distinction and b) explains how to insert them accurately.

In the article in question, about Victor F. Zonana, the reference to my business partner David Gold seemed to come out a bit awkwardly. Also don't know if I did the references to GHNZ.org and EHF.org correctly. VictorFZo (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

VictorFZo, welcome to the Teahouse. WP:EASYREFBEGIN has information on how to properly cite information. Sources (which should be reliable and independent from the subject) are used to verify information being given about the subject. This is done by referencing them, which appear near the bottom of the article as footnotes which can be linked to the appropriate page, if any. Wikipedia does not do external links (for example, the links to EHF and GHNZ) in the body of the article, which should be in an "External links" section at the bottom of the article; a simplified breakdown of what to do and not do when linking can be found here. Since you're editing an article about yourself, I suggest you exercise some caution, as while writing about yourself isn't strictly prohibited, it's strongly discouraged as subjects more often have trouble writing neutrally about themselves than not.

Taking a quick look at the references used, only the Huffington Post reference potentially appears to be a reliable source, as press releases and company profiles tend to be not independent. Better secondary sources should be looked for. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:52, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Tenryuu. The first footnote (HHS Press release) can be replaced by this Washington Post op-ed, which confirms my position in the Clinton Administration.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/01/presidents-have-history-over-promising-vaccines-heres-why-thats-problem/

I believe EHF.org issued an announcement of my appointment as a Fellow, but I fear that would be considered a press relesase. There is also this article from a New Zealand newspaper that describes me as a Fellow: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/123600320/overseas-entrepreneurs-supercharged-kiwis-plan-to-rid-niue-of-hepatitis-b-and-c VictorFZo (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

COI asking for help to review suggested edits

 Courtesy link: RightScale

Hello everybody, I am asking for help in order to make the subjected page (RightScale) better.

I am connected to RightScale and hence can't edit it directly.

My suggested edits are backed up with references and were actually in place until the user who put them got banned.

Please review my request and edit back the page.

I am not suggesting anything that's wrong or false, it's the truth, so I hope someone will act on it and revert it back to Hugo999's version.

Thank you! Flenleaf1 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Flenleaf1 (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Flenleaf1: You have used the {{request edit}} template correctly at the article's talk page, so an uninvolved editor will take a look at it at some point. Please note that the template says "The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient." By posting the request, you have flagged it for review, and that's really all you can do right now. Adding a second request edit template is not going to speed up the process, I'm afraid. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 16:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank for invit me, Teahouse

 Ybsanizk (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ybsanizk: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The Teahouse is intended as a spot where new users can post their questions. Most questions here are answered rather quickly. If you ever have a question about using or editing Wikipedia, feel free to ask. Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

adding name to main name

Hello Friends I have an account on Turkish Wikipedia for many years. The name in the title is my artistic name “Cenk Taşkan” , To existing Name,how can I add my real name whıch is “Majak Toşikyan” in conclusion : Majak Toşikyan - Cenk Taşkan

                      or

Cenk Taşkan - Majak Toşikyan  96.20.210.103 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

We cannot help you with issiues involving the turkish Wikipedia, sorry. Maybe try to ask at tr:Vikipedi:Danışma masası Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just replied to this question on the Help Desk. Please don't ask the same question in different places, as it wastes everybody's time. --ColinFine (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up to Dating System in articles; CITED REFERENCES

Continuing Discussion on threats of Blocking re BCE/CE Dating System V. BC/AD Dating system.

I previously in this space indicated that I was opposed to authors of Wiki using the BCE/CE dating system, when the referred to sources used the BC/AD system and that I was shocked at the threats of being BLOCKED for such an action as correcting an article to conform with a cited source. There was a note that many editors who were NOT Christian (Emphasis mine) on Wiki were very opposed to the use of the BCE/CE dating system. What about those of us who ARE Christian and who see the change from the dating system used in the reference source to that in the article as offensive?There are also many people who are not apparently religiously motivated and who simply want an ACCURATE depiction of a cited source.

One would THINK that accurately citing authorities is at the very heart of good scholarship.

I was surprised at the hostility of one writer who stated that: "It is especially disruptive to impose a Christian based dating system on articles about China (or other articles with no connection to Christianity), as you have done." IS it not disruptive to graft and "impose" your own dating system on the citation that you use in an article? WHY is this not disruptive while editing the article to return to the dating system preferred and used by the source is? This is what the reference stated and used. It is those who change this piece of information who are being "disruptive". Moreover, this writer states that "China.. or other articles(sic) with no connection to Christianity.......... This writer truly needs to educate himself. China has along and very deep connection to Christianity, dating back to Nestorian Christians who established communities there in the 7th century. There are over 44 million Christians in China and Christianity is the fastest growing faith there. I strongly suggest you consult Wiki before making such ill founded statements.

My point is that the disruption so loudly condemned here actually originates froma DEVIATION of the information contained in the source. You want to cite a source? Do so with respect and accuracy to the intentions and information contained in that reference source. The threats to "BLOCK" employed here can plainly be seen as bullying tactics and I would think are beneath the dignity of an "Editor". Lookout657 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

You are free to have whatever opinions you wish about appropriate dating systems, but when you edit Wikipedia you are not free to ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. You have not been met by any hostility, only honest information about what these policies say; also please remember that Wikipedia is governed by consensus and not by what any one individual editor feels. It is absolutely not a misrepresentation of a source to say "BCE" in the article even if the source used for the information says "BC". The only exception is in direct quotes. Read WP:ERA and stick to it; if you find that to be distasteful to you personally, avoid articles where you may be tempted to violate it. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 19:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Changing date system is obviously not a deviation from the source material. --Paul ❬talk❭ 20:07, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

My question to the OP is: What happens when two reliable sources use different dating systems? Does one take precedent over the other or should it just be arbitrarily chosen? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about Creative Commons attribution

How would attribution work in wiki markup? Let's say it was this image; because there are "some rights reserved" does that mean that it is unusable on Wikipedia? Not really a new user; just unfamiliar with the image copyright/Wikimedia side of things.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: My understanding is that you only need to link to the image, and the image attribution is in the file description at Commons. RudolfRed (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@RudolfRed: Thanks for the response. In that case, is the use of the image at my user page suitable? Sdrqaz (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Sdrqaz. Yes, at the moment, your use on your user page is acceptable. If the Commons reviewer or admin decides that the licence is not acceptable, the file will be deleted from Commons, and of course will have to be removed from your user page. --ColinFine (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great, ColinFine, thanks! Sdrqaz (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Liberal Democrats (UK)

Why are the liberal democrats represented as Center-left when liberalism in the capitalist camp is represented as right wing? Even on other pro-libertarian parties their ideology is always defined as either a big tent subtype or simply center to center right.

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Columbia_Libertarian_Party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarians_(Brazil) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertair,_Direct,_Democratisch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(United_States)

The only other exception I found was this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Party_(Australia)

Another libertarian party in an anglo country. Are these parties perhaps inserted as "center-left" so that the unaware young voter finds their wikipedia party and believes it might be aligned with their interests?

I believe, in the search of true impartiality, that the Liberal Democrats from the UK should be catalogued either as Center or Center Right. As categorising them inside Center-Left is directly opposed to the Marxist viewpoint on the subject. Unless wikipedia operates and provides exclusively a capitalist leaning viewpoint, the right thing to do is to change their ideological section.

Other possible solution would be describing their social policies as "left wing" (although I do find that encapsulating "progressivism" under the left is also factually incorrect) And their economic policies as "right wing"

Have a good day 87.221.249.41 (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. What matters is how independent reliable sources describe a political party(or any organization), not our personal opinion as to what a party's ideology is. If the Liberal Democrats are described by independent sources as left wing, then we do too. Posting your own analysis would be original research. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if you are confusing "libertarian" and "Liberal Democrat". The UK's Liberal Democrats are not libertarian. Maproom (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Temporarily Watched

Hi, I made an edit to a wikipedia page, namely Criticism of the BBC but it got reverted by a bot. I did it in completely good faith, and I thought my edits were legitimate, so I reverted the bot's reversion - all a bit abstract. Anyway, that got reverted by an actual user who kindly and politely pointed out that my edit didn't add much to the article. So, now I've got a "temporarily watched" thingmy-majigy on my watchlist. What is it, when will it go away and should I be concerned? Many thanks EcheveriaJ (talk) 20:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EcheveriaJ: Goodness no, that just means the article is on your watchlist temporarily. This probably happened automatically during one of your edits. Nothing to worry about at all. --Paul ❬talk❭ 21:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EcheveriaJ:, Paul is right. If you want to remove the article from your watch list, go to the article and click the blue star in the menu bar, so that it stops being blue. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Question on creating articles

Hello! Thank you for the invite. I have a quick question regarding creating an article. Can a user create an article on English Wikipedia that is based (but not translated) from non-English Wikipedia? I have seen some non-English Wikipedia articles that have their English counterpart, but it's different in terms that the English article is more up to date than the non-English one.

I am not sure if this question has been asked before, or if this is a nonsense question, but I would appreciate if someone can help. Have a safe and happy new year, everyone. Wjddml (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wjddml Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. There are no nonsense questions here, so don't worry. I'm not an expert at it, and others who are might know better than I, but it is certainly permitted to translate an article from another language version of Wikipedia to here; it is done not infrequently. It is important to remember that each language version of Wikipedia is its own project with their own editors, policies, and practices, so what is acceptable on one language version is not necessarily acceptable on another version. So if there is an article you want to translate you will want to check that things like notability are satisfied on the version you are translating for. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you so much for the response. I will keep this in mind. Thanks again. Wjddml (talk)

Wjddml, I'll just add to 331dot's answer that there is a page Translation which explains what you need to do. --ColinFine (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@ColinFine This is very helpful. Thanks to both of you! Wjddml (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong Photo on Charles Miller House (Cincinnati) page

How can I get the correct photo added to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_A._Miller_House This is the wrong photo. The correct photo is at: https://www.google.com/maps/place/1817+Chase+Ave,+Cincinnati,+OH+45223/@39.1647275,-84.5483761,3a,75y,188.9h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sk3Vl_o7jb5uqyMHXbYKe6g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x8841b4edd60a8b15:0x621c232dc177be8e!8m2!3d39.164487!4d-84.5483661

Thanks. I am not familiar with how to edit things in Wikipedia.

Kathy P. Kag1949 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kathy, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid we can't use Google maps or Google Streetview anywhere in Wikipedia, because their terms of use are incompatible with Wikipedia's needs. Most images you find on the internet are not suitable for similar reasons. If you were to take a picture of the house yourself, you would be able to upload it to use it in an article. --ColinFine (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Format for listing a book with revised editions

I cannot locate the formatting recommendations for how to list a book in a person page's bibliography under various circumstances. For example, a revised edition/anniversary addition/new or revised preface or foreword: do I list publication information for the original and the anniversary/new edition?

If there have been several editions with the last not being as significant in content as, say, a 30th anniversary edition, do I only list the original and the anniversary edition? What should I do when there's a later edition with the original no longer in print: do I list both ISBNs; do I list publishing information for each edition?

And so on. ;)

Bottom line: If this is standard, I'm wanting to keep the list in chronological order by original release so people can easily see which works came first. --PaulThePony (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about conflict of interest

I am a bit stuck about what I need to do regarding addressing the COI comment at the beginning of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Truscott All the facts in the article are accurate. I am no sure what you mean by working in mobile view or VisualEditor. --Woonga (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC) Woonga (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: Editor seems to have previously edited under the name of "Stephen Truscott". This seems like a discussion that would be better had with Eagleash, as they were the editor who added the COI tag. Woonga, if you have a conflict of interest (going off your edits to nearly exclusively pages with the surname "Truscott", that seems more than likely), you need to disclose it. Information on how to do that can be found at WP:DISCLOSE. Moreover, if you happen to have a COI, you are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly (WP:COIEDIT). In a way, it doesn't matter that much that the "facts in the article are accurate". You should not be editing those pages, much less creating them. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

• Editor created Draft:Stephen Austin Truscott in which the Jim Truscott article was linked to. It appears they have now changed their username and the draft has been tagged for deletion, although that will not work as it has been placed between 'nowiki' tags. It appears (to me) that the draft is an autobiography and unless I'm reading it wrongly 'Jim' is the editor's brother. As noted, with a COI they should not be editing the page but are welcome to make requests at the talk page. Template:Request edit has instructions on how to do this. Eagleash (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your respective suggestions. I have requested an edit as you suggested.

--Woonga (talk) 02:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

How to hide infobox in an article?

Hi there, I have a question to ask about hiding an infobox in an article. I created the infobox but feel that it doesn't contain enough useful information so perhaps it's best to keep it hidden for the time being. However, when I use the standard template, it doesn't seem to work with infoboxes. Do you know how I can get around that (short of not including the infobox at all)? Thanks! Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Categories

Hello, I don't see a "More" (and "Move") tab at the top of any categories. How can I move a category? Thank you, Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charlie Smith FDTB: You need special rights to move a category. You can make a request at WP:CFD. You can check that page to see if it qualifies for a "speedy" move. RudolfRed (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Charlie Smith FDTB (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Undo redirect

On the last (top) entry in page history, why would pressing undo send me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Reverting#Undo ? I was here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hunter_Biden&action=history , trying to restore FeralOink. Charles Juvon (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: ...  Undid revision 997210111 by FeralOink (talk) BLP (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo) [automatically accepted] I'm guessing that you clicked on the second link, in (Tag: Undo), which is a tag on that edit, instead of the first one, at (undo | thank), which performs an undo. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 02:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Very strange. I see: "curprev 14:25, 30 December 2020‎ SPECIFICO talk contribs‎ m 81,994 bytes −2,654‎ Undid revision 997210111 by FeralOink (talk)BLP thank Tag: Undo [automatically accepted]" --------> "(undo | thank)" is completely missing. Charles Juvon (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Charles Juvon: I think it's because the article is extended-confirmed protected, you are not yet extended confirmed, and therefore cannot "undo", so it doesn't give you the option. I assume it's missing from other entries in the history as well? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 03:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and I have the time, but only ~400 edits. Thank you. Charles Juvon (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Need more help and explanation

Hello ! I am glad you contacted me. I hope, I am using correct place to answer you. I have difficulty in finding correct places. Earlier, I noticed your flags and bells, but did not know what to do with them and where to write answers. I am very new in wiki. As soon as I found this place, I will answer to your questions here.

1/ Richard V. E. Lovelace is a lively and talkative person. He liked to tell stories about his early life, family and travel at any Cornell gatherings. Everyone knows a lot about his life, because he liked to repeat these stories many times. I added only a small part of information, which everyone at the Department knows. Description in the section of his Early years, biography and travel are correct. However, it is YOUR choice to add them or not. I am not professional in wiki, and quite satisfied with the current version. Some wiki pages include fun staff about professor, others are very formal. Whatever. Does not matter for me.

2/ I had a reference to the US-Russia collaboration in Plasma Astrophysics which was removed: http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/us-russia/ The collaboration started in 1991 approximately, and continued for almost 30 years. This is the only major US-Russia collaboration in astrophysics. The web page is stable, and has lots of information. More than 50 science papers were published. Collaboration is Cornell-based and US-supported (through multiple US grants). There is nothing in Russian and helped by Russia. Russian scientists visited US every year or worked from home.

3/ US-Kazkhstan Astrophysics collaboration is also unique. Not as long as US-Russia collaboration, but important for Kazakhstan scientists. I would add corresponding web page http://hosting.astro.cornell.edu/research/projects/us-kaz/index.htm

4/ I liked the former sub-section "Discovery of the Crab Pulsar Period" and recommend to return it back. This is very important discovery. Let me explain. When pulsars were discovered by Bell and Hewish in 1967 (he got Noble Price for this discovery), people initially talked about Little Green Men (Aliens), then (when the second pulsar was discovered) about pulsating white dwarfs, and only some scientists suggested the hypothesis of the rotating neutron star. Pulsars have period from 1 to a few seconds. This could be anything. In 1968 Richard developed a special program and was able to find period of Crab pulsar, which is 33 ms = 0.033 sec, which is much smaller than previously found periods. This discovery led to solid conclusion that pulsars are rotating neutron stars. Only neutron star may rotate 30 times per 1 second. Neutron stars back then were only theoretically predicted. This is a star where atoms are broken, nuclei compressed and also broken, and a star consists of neutrons packed together. Our Sun compressed to neutron star would have a size of 10 kilometers. If you compress it 3 times more, then it would collapse to a black hole. Anyway, this discovery was super important. And forgotten. Richard is modest person. In many wiki sources I've seen phrases like: In 1968 33 ms period of Crab Pulsar was discovered. Without mentioning the name - who discovered it. That is why, I developed a special, visible section about this discovery. BTW, a few years ago, Japanese filmmakers came from Japan and recorded Prof. Lovelace, about his discovery, then they went to Arecibo Observatory. Unfortunately, I cannot find this movie and reference.

I see that you placed everything in chronological order, and his discovery goes to the place, where he was a graduate student. I think, it is not necessary. Jocelyn Bell also discovered first pulsar, when she was a graduate student (Nobel Price discovery). Her discovery is considered as "one of the most significant scientific achievements of the 20th century" (Wikipedia). I think, finding period of Crab Pulsar (and proof for existence of neutron stars) is also very important. It would be better and more visible to keep a special sub-section, like in my original version.

5/ Other, minor corrections of the current version of the article: a/ Reference [1] - should be to Eldridge Lovelace (https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Eldridge_Lovelace) or to any reference inside this wiki page, not to NY Times

b/ If you keep the current sections, then I recommend in section "Research" to start from the phrase: "In 1969, Lovelace discovered period {\displaystyle P\approx 33}{\displaystyle P\approx 33} ms of the Crab Pulsar.[6] Then continue about the code. Remove this phrase from the middle of the section.

c/ There are other minor things, like dots, etc. Can be corrected later.

6/ I would like to repeat that I am independent scientist and do not have any interest from writing this wiki paper. If Japanese came from Japan with huge cameras to Prof. Lovelace, then why don't colleague from Cornell cannot write a page about prominent, but modest professor?

Richard retired this year, and became Emeritus Professor. He almost stopped working. However, the memory about discoveries should live.

Thank you very much for your help. Thank you for correcting my other errors.

Best regards Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC) Marinaromanova55 (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Marinaromanova55, you've posted this to the Teahouse, and not at (presumably) User talk:Worm That Turned or User talk:Yngvadottir. This is content that should probably be posted to Talk:Richard V. E. Lovelace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

irrational sets

DEFINITION OF IRRATIONAL NUMBERS I think the definition of irrational sets should be amended to read "Irrationl numbers are numbers that can de defined by a finite numbers of integers". 2600:8801:B000:5A0:617B:AFB9:396D:2276 (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, this may be something you want to suggest over at Talk:Irrational number. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user. If you are saying that the infinitely repeating decimal number .33333… is not rational, no that number is 1/3 which is rational. If that is not what you mean, then it is not clear what you do mean. —teb728 t c 07:39, 3 January 2021 (UTC)