Wikipedia:Teahouse

ColinFine, 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

Mobile Editing

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T278568

I've noticed that when I'm editing on my phone that it's impossible to use the visual editor for categories when the title of the article is too long. The button to publish comes after the title and instead of wrapping around once it reaches the end of my phone screen it just goes right off the end and it's impossible to tap. I was wondering where I should mention this for someone to look into fixing. I know I can just type the category, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TipsyElephant. You may want to consider using the fully functional desktop site, which works perfectly well on mobile devices, and does not suffer from the numerous bugs that affect the mobile site and the visual editor. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328: How do I change to the desktop version? TipsyElephant (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, while in mobile mode, scroll to the very bottom of the page. You will see a link to click to enter desktop mode. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant Hi , welcome to Teahouse. It's simple to do that. After typing category just hold your phone horizontal on landscape . You will see button. Research Voltas (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Research Voltas: Turning my phone sideways does absolutely nothing (it just stays vertical), and even if it did I'm guessing that really long title would still go off the screen because whoever programmed it didn't account for long titles. I was originally wondering if there is someone who deals with the backend who would be able to fix the problem that I should get into contact with. TipsyElephant (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I rethreaded the conversation above, hope that's okay. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:33 Sat 20, AEDT) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

TipsyElephant, when I go into mobile VE, I just have the toolbar buttons with Publish Changes across the top, no page title. Are you talking about the "Add pagename to new categories" screen? We could file a ticket on Phab:. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) might be able to advise who looks after the mobile categories feature, though she’s fairly busy with the talk pages project at the moment. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:33 Sat 20, AEDT) 19:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Pelagic. The mw:Mobile visual editor belongs to the Editing team, and I'd be happy to file a Phab ticket (unless someone else gets there first).

@TipsyElephant, can you give me a link to the article where you encountered it, an example of a category that's too long, and some idea of what your phone/screen size is? They'll want to be able to see the problem for themselves, so that they can figure out whether their solution actually solves the problem. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): so the problem isn't that any category is too long. The problem is that when a title of an article is too long it pushes the publish button off the right side of the screen. For instance, really long article names like The Carl Donnelly and Chris Martin Comedy Podcast make it impossible to add a category. I've found that article titles that are about 25 characters long render the button useless. I can just barely add categories to The Dead Authors Podcast, but I'm unable to add categories to The Anthropocene Reviewed. I'm currently using Android on a Moto G7 Power and as I've previously mentioned turning my phone sideways does not change the view, but even if it did I'm guessing the text still doesn't wrap around for really long titles. It's also worth mentioning that even medium length titles result in the publish button being only partially visible. For instance, titles around 17 or 19 characters cause the right side of the button to be pushed off the end of the screen. When adding a category to The Daily (podcast) the letter "h" at the end of publish is not visible. TipsyElephant (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant, I think I'm missing something. What device are you using? Which site (mobile view vs desktop view) are you using?

Your original comment says that you're concerned about the mw:mobile visual editor, but I can't see any edits labeled "Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit" in your contributions. This edit seems to have been done in the mobile wikitext editor.

Also, I don't think that the mobile visual editor lets you edit categories at all. It has a character formatting menu (A) and a Link button and a Cite button in the main toolbar, but no button for categories. I wonder if you would be willing to describe for me, step by step, exactly what you're seeing and clicking on at each step. That would help me figure out what's going on, so I can get this bug report filed (because it is definitely a problem). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF): I select the mobile view. I do not hit the edit button at all so I guess it's not the mobile view or the source view, but I wasn't sure what else to call it and it's definitely not source view. There's a categories button at the bottom of the article. If I select that button it shows me categories ("content based" or "organizational") that the article is already in and then I tap on the "add to category" button in the top right of the screen. I then "search categories" and select the category I want, but to finalize the category I need to press a button that says publish in the top right, however, this specific page always says "Add <article name> to new categories". So when the article name is really long it pushes the publish button located to the right of "Add <article name> to new categories" off the side of the page. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Huh, I've never seen that tool before. I can reproduce the problem you're encountering. Let me go track down which team's working on that and get a bug report filed for you. Thank you for giving me the step-by-step description, @TipsyElephant. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I also realised that using a phone can make editing difficult and frustrating therefore it is better to use a laptop or computer Lengeloi (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers

Is there a way to make talk pages healthier here, especially for newcomers? Some of the talk pages are so off-putting because of the way editors talk to others. Newcomers get the worst of it, from what I've observed. Or is the disrespect an expected part of the environment? I've read the talk page guidelines and the civility policy, but neither seem to have much of an impact on the unpleasantness occurring at some talk pages. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Howdy, New Sheriff in Town and welcome to the Teahouse. Personally, I think simply trying to set a good example in one's own communications is the best way to slowly lift standards of civility, and never to get riled up, nor tell the other editor that "Wikipedia ain't big enough for the both of us". Of course, it's hard to include nuance and subtlety in talk page posts via a keyboard, and many active editors find themselves inevitably having to leave short, sharp messages for editors when they make a mistake that needs correcting, before moving on to the next problem, and the next, and so forth. Here at the Teahouse we try to offer a friendly face when we answer questions, and I don't see that you've personally encountered any problems yourself. But I can see you are interested in subjects which can attract strong opinions, so perhaps you've seen some blunt speaking on those pages. Either way, welcome again to Wikipedia and enjoy your own Wikipedia Adventure. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello and thank you, Nick Moyes. I have been appalled by some of what I have seen. I plan to mostly stick to biology pages. After what I've seen at the more controversial pages, I'll try to leave those alone as much as possible. Even many pages people would conclude aren't going to be controversial turn out to be a hotbed of discord. I knew that female biology topics could be political, but the discord on the talk page can still blow me away. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, New Sheriff in Town, people do get hot under the collar for all sorts of reasons but, being a collaborative project, it's important to be able to debate different perspectives without insulting the other person and thus to reach a consensus. Sadly, many editors seem to forget that, and descend to attacking the other person, not the statements they want to add or remove. Sometimes, it's the old hands (who ought to know better) who go straight for the jugular. Even today I found this happening in a minor way on my own talk page, hence this comment. Nick Moyes (talk) 283:22, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen senior editors being the worst offenders. Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about this. I'll do my best to not get hot under the collar. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi New Sheriff in Town. I'm a little late to the thread, but I notice that the article you're referring to is a Featured Article that is being actively edited by a team of senior editors. That might not be the best place for a newer editor to start. From my own experiences, sometimes I'll make a one word change to a featured article and it'll get reverted. The senior editors that work on those articles craft every word carefully, to conform not only to our complex Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also to the written and unwritten norms of the Featured Article process. I consider editing Featured Articles to be an advanced skill, and you might have a better experience editing in a less stringent area. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Novem Linguae. It's a featured article, but some felt it wasn't the quality article it once was. So it's been undergoing what you guys call a review. Featured article or no, I feel confident in saying it's no excuse for how multiple editors there have been treated. From their own mouths with takes like this one (which was toned down afterward) and what is said in the thread as a whole, it hasn't been a pleasant environment. That's why those like me who are knowledgeable in the subject area are discouraged from taking part in discussions there. So are non-experts, even though an essay from you guys says Wikipedia doesn't give experts special treatment, and I don't see any experts in the subject area there. A newcomer can help out with advice or opinions on the discussion page. The newcomer doesn't need to edit the page outside of that. Still, if what the newcomer has to say will be dismissed or seen as lesser than because they're new, it's really discouraging. I didn't want to point to that thread because it's not the only page I've seen which colors the Wikipedia environment as rife with discord, but also because I'm not interested in hearing from those who have been rude there. So please don't call them here. I said my piece there. I said others and I observed that discussion page and other discussion pages to get a sense of how editors here collaborate. It's not one of the pages I was very interested in editing, but I know a couple of people who were considering contributing there and turned away when they saw the arguments there. Thank you for your opinions, but I don't want to linger on this. In addition to the crash course I've been given by others about Wikipedia, I've been reading up on Wikipedia's ways when time allows, and I will push forward with heavier editing once I feel more confident about doing that. For heavier editing, I will be starting with the circulatory system article and have said on the discussion page there that I will be expanding two sections. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

New Sheriff in Town, roger that. Thanks for the response. I hope your editing goes very smoothly and that you have a good experience. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

New Sheriff in Town thanks, interesting conversation! I'd like to add to the title of this section "making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for women". Aggressive writing on talk pages is one of the factors that has contributed to Gender bias on Wikipedia (check out the recent discussion on the talk page there; the most controversial thread has already been archived for now). I don't know if there is something wrong about the way I write on talk pages or how I edit (or are people getting tenser because of Covid lockdowns?) but just recently I've copped quite a big of flack, mostly from experienced, long-term, male (?) editors (who sometimes refer to everyone else as "he" instead of "she" or "they"). I assume there are probably PhD theses out there somewhere that have analysed how people use talk pages, who gets aggressive when and why. I very much like the policy of WP:NOBITE. - Anyway, thanks to the friendly helpers at the Teahouse and let's keep supporting each other! EMsmile (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No. That kind of gender stereotyping is not helpful. Editors are editors. Male editors are editors. Female editors are editors. Genderqueer editors are editors. In each of these gender groups, and all others, the difference between individuals is going to be a lot more important than any similarities – especially since within each group, there will not be one single similarity that is not also shared with all other groups. In other words, a talk page discussion that is "healthier for women" is either going to be better for all editors, or better for some women and worse for others, and the mere wording is going to alienate a substantial number of female editors. --bonadea contributions talk 09:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Bonadea. Even though I requested that editors from that page not be called here, you made this post. Why? I didn't want this thread to become a part two of that one. For reasons I've said there and in this thread, I didn't reply there. I replied here (and only because Novem Linguae replied to me and I felt okay about expressing my feelings on that reply here). Now I feel unsafe in this thread. I posted to the Teahouse for uninvolved opinions from friendly editors. I don't want this thread to be a mouthpiece for why editors might behave in very subpar ways toward others when the page is a featured article or serve as an extension to say why an editor there may have been treated the way they were treated there. That will only lead to that editor arguing with the one saying that about them. I have gotten plenty of advice and insight already (thanks to friendly editors above and email), and this thread wasn't meant to be about just one discussion page. This isn't a knock on you, EMsmile. Your comment before this post is appreciated, and I can see from the article and talk page you pointed to that many agree with you about Wikipedia suffering from a male-female gender gap and partly due to bias. Still, count me out for saying anything more in this thread. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

When a discussion on one very high-profile and visible talk page links to a different talk page and criticises specific editors, it is a matter of basic courtesy to also create a link in the other direction. In some cases such a link is required – that is not the case at the Teahouse, but there is no reason not to connect the discussions, especially since the article talk page shouldn't be used to discuss editing behaviour anyway. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, bonadea; I think a careful review of the entire talk page by anyone concerned will be revealing. Meanwhile, WP:FOC is a key aspect of Wikipedia editing that can be pointed out. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi bonadea, in theory you might be right ("Editors are editors"). In practice, research has shown that - in general - women might be more averse to "aggressive discussion styles" than men. See e.g. here. I copy some bits from there: "Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner cited nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia: Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars; Some find its overall atmosphere misogynistic; Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting; Being addressed as male is off-putting to women whose primary language has grammatical gender; Fewer opportunities for social relationships and a welcoming tone compared to other sites." That's what I was referring to. Of course many males find that kind of stuff also off-putting, whereas some female editors don't mind and are perhaps even more aggressive than the average male editor. But overall, the research has shown those kinds of trends. It's normal, that a working environment where 80% of editors are male, there would be a certain tendency towards certain communication styles that are more prevalent amongst men. (sorry - probably the teahouse is not the right place for this kind of discussion (?); if so, I'll be quiet now. :-) ) EMsmile (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

All very interesting, but presumes to know whether the most offensive posts on that page are from men or women, so while an interesting discussion, not very relevant to that particular article talk page. At THAT article, we have a male engaging to help address a topic related to females (as one of the few Wikipedians competent to do just that), and it is not hard to see how he was treated (see WP:BLUDGEON); I leave it to you to guess which posters are male and which are female. And to speculate on whether anyone would ever want to put themselves through that again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile, no, I am not talking about theoretical constructs, but basing what I say on current research on empirical sociolinguistics (and not on a Wikipedia article). women might be more averse to "aggressive discussion styles" than men is true, but it is equally true that men might be more averse to "aggressive discussion styles" than women, depending on the context. There is a very slight correlation between gender and discussion style, which varies depending on the context, but the variation within gender groups (not only men and women but all other genders) is so much greater that we can say with complete confidence that there is no causation. And as Sandy Georgia points out, we don't know the biological sex or social gender of other editors in the vast majority of cases anyway. What is offensive is people such as the person quoted above presuming to be a spokesperson on what is "off-putting to women", or making it sound like women are incapable of intellectual pursuits – poor little flowers, they wilt without social interaction and we must protect them. How can she talk about aversion to conflict as if that is not significantly much more dependent on culture than on gender? Did she just shoot her mouth off without first consulting any research at all? Kind of sad, for a representative of an encyclopedia, and very sad indeed that her blog is used as a source in the article. --bonadea contributions talk 15:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bonadea, the Teahouse is supposed to be "A friendly place where you can ask questions to get help with using and editing Wikipedia." New Sheriff in Town said, "I didn't want to point to that thread because it's not the only page I've seen which colors the Wikipedia environment as rife with discord, but also because I'm not interested in hearing from those who have been rude there. So please don't call them here. I said my piece there." But you pointed the editors New Sheriff in Town has some unease about interacting with to this thread. And by doing so, you brought the same tension from there to here, which is unhelpful. That's not beneficial to New Sheriff in Town. One of the editors (above me) has even made this about the feelings of the editor others have felt uncomfortable talking to (with an inaccurate claim of WP:BLUDGEONING for good measure). Experienced users in this thread looked at New Sheriff in Town's edits and easily connected the two threads. So it's very likely that those at that page who read New Sheriff in Town's post looked at New Sheriff in Town's contribution history and would have seen this Teahouse section. What your post there did, though, was invite them here. Now this thread has become a gender debate. Unless we assume that most people on Wikipedia take on a male identity for appearances' sake, there's really no reason to doubt that most of Wikipedia is male and the reasons given for this when the data on it has been strong and stable. The data has also been strong and stable supporting the sobering point that the Internet is overwhelmingly male and the reasons for this.[1] So it's not just a Wikipedia thing. Sue hasn't said anything the women themselves haven't said. If we're going to talk about Sue Gardner, I say we point her to this discussion (through my notification and maybe through email). Sue, here's more material for your research. Count me out of commenting more in this thread too. ApproximateLand (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your points, ApproximateLand. The tone in this thread has changed which is a pity. It's gone back to that conversation at menstrual cycle which is unnecessary as this is a broader issue, not restricted to a particular article or particular editors. Regarding genders, I don't make assumptions who is who, it usually comes out quite naturally during the conversations (and if it doesn't I don't assume anything). I give you here an example that I experienced on the India talk page (see here) (I gave the same example on the talk page of Gender bias on Wikipedia, now archived): An experienced long term male editor addressed another editor several times as "he" even though the other editor pointed out several times that she is not a he. She said: "If you don't know somebody's gender, why not use the singular they?". He replied: "You could have simply said you are female. It is important to acknowledge that in an enterprise that is pretty much all male." My reply was: "I find that very offensive. You are implying that the onus is on us (yes, I am also female) to state that we are female in order to avoid being called "he/his" because you say it's an all male environment. [...] ." - This kind of stuff still happens far too often. And I agree that cultural differences are also important. It could well be that many people from Asian or African cultures don't enjoy the aggressive, argumentative style that people from Europe and North America are used to, and therefore rather stay away. So maybe the title of this thread could be "Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for people who prefer peace and calm". EMsmile (talk) 01:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. bonadea If you have time/energy please go ahead and improve the Wikipedia article on Gender bias on Wikipedia if you have more reliable sources than what is used there at present. I have no doubt that the article could be improved further to make it more accurate and comprehensive. EMsmile (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have absolutely zero insight into issues of gender bias at Wikipedia. If I gave the impression that I think I have any knowledge about that, I apologise. I have never carried out any research on the subject, nor am I qualified to do so, and I have no idea of whether there is in fact valid research in the area. But thank you for informing me of the fact that I am allowed to edit the article. As for misgendering others, that is indeed very rude regardless of who does it, but that is something that needs to be brought up with the individual who does it. That there are people who refuse to acknowledge the fact that English can use singular "they" only shows that those people don't know how language works – but again, that's an issue with those individuals. And @ApproximateLand: that was an excellent example of mansplaining, regardless of what your gender is. (I am not asking. It is none of my business.) I believe I explained my rationale for linking the discussion. Sue hasn't said anything the women themselves haven't said. There is no group of prototypical women who are able to say What Women Think. Sure, reporting on the results of a survey is all well and good, but we cannot extrapolate from that kind of survey to a very large population and pretend to know anything about that population, that is very poor research practice. It would be even worse if we started to generalise from the population to individuals belonging to the population – that's how systemic repression begins. It would also be very poor research practice to look at one discussion between four or five anonymous people, who probably but not certainly have different gender identities and cultural backgrounds, and cite it as representative for the discursive practices of an entire speech community. (If you want to investigate discourse practices you need randomly sampled data, absolutely not cherry-picked discussions.) --bonadea contributions talk 23:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Btw, focusing on shared characteristics as in the suggestion "Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for people who prefer peace and calm" is more constructive, I think. New editors do generally have things in common, and it is for instance important not to "welcome" them with an acronym salad or jargon that seems designed to exclude them. (That is also part of the advice for teahouse hosts.) Some newly registered editors will have read up on some policies so as to recognise the codes, but avoiding abbreviations doesn't make a post less helpful to those individuals. People who prefer peace and calm will very often have a difficult time at Wikipedia given the large number of disruptive trolls who get their kicks out of harassing other people, but the trolls will never care about policies anyway. What constitutes constructive and polite/civil discussion is not universal, and I sometimes think that a brief tutorial in the fundamentals of civility in English might be useful. Many editors who are not native speakers of English are being chastised for being "rude" because they use politeness strategies that are appropriate in their own language; this often leads to very upset emotions and angry exchanges, since the editors feel that they are being attacked even though they are being polite, and the English speakers have no idea of this! (Of course each individual is different when it comes to their cultural/linguistic background as well, and saying "person X will use this mode of discussion because his native language is Y" would be as offensive as saying "person X will use this mode of discussion because she identifies as female". But unlike gender groups, it is possible to identify actual statistically significant trends among second language speakers from different backgrounds, and unlike gender groups, there are clear reasons why a fist language will often affect a second language in a particular way.) --bonadea contributions talk 14:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi bonadea, I'd be interested to learn more about the cultural and language differences about polite use of the English language etc. I'm very interested in assisting more editors from developing countries to edit on Wikipedia so I feel that this information would be useful for me. Is there a Wikipedia article on this topic that I should read? Or perhaps it's included in a Wikipedia article, e.g. The term Decolonization of knowledge might be the place where some of this could fit? If there is no Wikipedia article yet, perhaps there is a Wikipedia policy page or a Wikipedia essay page where it is explained / discussed? Or failing that, perhaps you could give me some links to the relevant literature (freely accessible please as I don't have access to a university library). - This thread will probably be archived soon but I'd like to continue. Where is the best place for that? Your or my talk page maybe? (by the way, claiming that someone was "mansplaining" is in my view not a nice comment to make here; it would have upset me if you had said that about me). And I think you cannot use it unless you know the gender of the person because it is defined as: "is a pejorative term meaning "(of a man) to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner") EMsmile (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile, do you think it appropriate here for you to be mentioning a very old post from Fowler & fowler at Talk:India (something long ago dealt with) and not pinging him or notifying him that you are talking about him behind his back? Is that what you consider to be the spirit of Teahouse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There was no need to ping that person because it was just meant to be an example, not a rekindling of that earlier case (not that long ago - 4 months ago). But fair enough, I should have made it an "anonymous" example, so have removed the name now in my post above. Sorry, my mistake. I could have quoted other examples as well. EMsmile (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Using a fellow human being as “just an example” to buttress an argument, without giving them the right of defense while not providing the rest of the context and talking behind their back, is not making Wikipedia healthier for anyone. That you think to do that (“just as an example”) is a concerning indication of your understanding of how a collaborative community optimally functions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Before this thread gets any longer, I suggest moving the discussion to WT:TPG, WT:BITE, WT:WER or some other page where any changes being discussed might actually be able to be fully fleshed out and perhaps even ulitmately implemented. While it's not necessarily wrong to discuss things such as this here at the Teahouse, at some point the discussion moves beyond what anyone here at the Teahouse can resolve and the thread just keeps getting longer and longer over time without ever becoming close to being resolved. The points being raised above are probably things that do deserve further discussion, but there are better places than the Teahouse to do that. So, for those that wish to continue the discussion, pick an appropriate page and use Template:Moved discussion to and Template:Moved discussion from to let others know about the move. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Which other place would you say is ideal for this type of general discussion on "Making talk pages healthier, especially for newcomers and for people who prefer peace and calm" (or similar title, focusing perhaps more on cultural differences in discussion styles)? EMsmile (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In case you missed it the first time, I suggest moving the discussion to WT:TPG, WT:BITE, WT:WER or some other page where any changes being discussed might actually be able to be fully fleshed out and perhaps even ulitmately implemented. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I obtain a picture of a person for wikipedia without infringing on copyrights????????

How do I update this photo with out copywrite issues? I don't get this at all. dO i DO A GOOGLE SEARCH AND PICK ANY PICTUIRE? sOMEONE PLEASE LET ME KNOW. Beamer.Backdrop (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beamer.Backdrop: You can take a picture yourself and donate it. You could also ask someone to donate their own photo - see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. GoingBatty (talk) 05:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Beamer.Backdrop Please, no multiple "?", no ALL CAPS: people here are trying to help. No, you definitely cannot pick any picture. GoingBatty's recommendation is good. Please do not frantically read the opening paragraph and the first section; it's a page that you have to read and digest in its entirety. (For example, there's no point following the advice under "Granting us permission to copy material already online" if the material isn't yours: You have to understand the section "You cannot donate what someone else owns" as well.) Getting a photo of your biographee into your now-draft, later-article is going to be difficult (though not impossible). Unless you can photograph him, somebody else is going to have to negotiate Wikimedia Commons's formalities. I imagine that they'd be more willing (less unwilling) to do that once they know that there is an article. I urge you to put all your effort into improving the text of the draft and getting it approved; once that's done, you can work on adding one or more photos to it. -- Hoary (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay thank you for your help. How can I prove I had someone donate a picture? Like I follow him on social media. If I reach out to his social media (and gosh, if he answers me) and if he sent me something, how do I prove this? Or maybe I can pull a photo from a concert?? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beamer.Backdrop (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Beamer.Backdrop: see the second half of the first bullet point I wrote at User talk:Beamer.Backdrop#Teahouse replies. I suggested that this process is not worth your time because, as you touch upon, the steps are difficult and have no guarantee of succeeding. For instance, were he to reply on social media saying "you could use this image", that would not even come close to acceptable under copyright law. He would need to get in contact with the photographer so that they could fill out this form (in the simplest case). I just do not think this is the right avenue to explore. Biographies on Wikipedia don't have to have images, and many don't. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

final check before submitting

hi and good evening I've been working on an article for a couple of weeks and I would like some help and advice to improve my article so it won't be rejected . I've read the manual script and I think all of the documents are cited and has links and references . In my previous article I used the words such as great and ..... numorous ... and now I've edited it . my I know is there anything that I should edit ? thanks for giving me your time best regards Neda Sajedi Neda.sajedi (talk) 13:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: draft is at Draft:Masoud Shafaghi Declined 24 March. Not yet resubmitted. As mentioned at the draft's Talk page, many of the refs are to IFIA website, and as Masoud is an employee of IFIA, these are considered primary refs, and thus not contributing to confirmation of his notability in a Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neda.sajedi.

• Comply with WP:PAID, since almost every draft similar to this one was written by someone who needs to.
• I immediately found you had copied swaths of text from the subject's (your?) Linkedin page (and one other source). Remove all other copyright violations (essentially, any text you copied from a source, though that's an oversimpification – see your talk page momentarily for more detail).

• Note that I have blocked your account since you re-added the copyright violations after I removed them. However, I blocked it for the shortest period possible (3 hours), and will undo the block once I have warned you on your talk page. I did so only to prevent you from adding back the copyvios again before I had time to warn you regarding them. If after you have been notified, you add them back, only then would I block you for longer.

• Get rid of all content based on Primary sources that are self-serving, provide any evaluation, or that are used for interpretation, opinion, synthesis or analysis and are not "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge".
• For anything left, that can technically be based on primary sources, see if you can replace with a secondary source anyway, and if you can, do so.
• Reformat all the references from naked URL, or just titles, to ones transparently attributing the sources, such as by providing the name of the work, author's name, title, date and such other details as identify the source, depending on context.
• Get rid of all hagiography like "Recognition of Shafaghi's outstanding achievements..." This is an encyclopedia.

Regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: User now indefinitely blocked for re-adding copyvios again, after warnings.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Translated Titles

Why would you ever include the script title as well as the translated title? When you enter the script title it just translates it for the viewer anyway so including the translated title results in the English title appearing twice. I've been messing around with how to correctly reference Korean articles and I just don't understand it. TipsyElephant (talk) 01:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about |script-title= being automatically translated. It doesn't happen for me, but maybe it's a new feature or something done by the WP:VISUALEDITOR. Have you tried asking at WP:KOREA about the best way to cite Korean language sources? Perhaps a member of that WikiProject can help sort out the problem you seem to be having? -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Lmao, I had Google translate on so everything on the page that was in Korean was being translated to English even in the source list. So it was just a dumb user error. I know that it's preferred that editors who know both languages do translations and I know absolutely no Korean so I'm going to try and be cautious about what I use the sources for, but would you have any suggestions as to how I could mitigate any mistakes I'm making? Perhaps I should ask at the Wikiproject to have someone proofread for me once I'm done working on the article? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Change Talking Tom and Friends logo

On 24 March 2021, the franchise recently changes its logo alongside its most apps. Lkas123 (talk) 09:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lkas123: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you are talking about changing the logo on Wikipedia, you have to upload an image. The new logo will fall under a non-free file; however, United States copyright law allows one to use non-free images of low resolution, called fair use. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1!11!! (talk) 12:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's worth adding to this that Wikipedia's policy on using non-free files is more restrictive than fair use law, and the non-free content criteria must all be met for a fair use file to remain on Wikipedia. If this is a change in logo and the logo is non-free then you can add the new logo in the article to replace the old one. However, depending on the simplicity of the logo it may actually be ineligible for copyright, so that we can use it freely. Are you able to provide an external URL link to an image of the new logo? — Bilorv (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I had a look at the official website listed in the external links section of Talking Tom and Friends, which has a thumbnail of the logo. Apparently the logo change is relatively minor (the old logo (used at Talking Tom and Friends and Talking Tom and Friends (TV series)) was white text with red outline but now it is red text with no outline, and the "AND" has been replaced with "&"). Besides, since the logo is just text, I believe it is not eligible for copyright, though I may be wrong. 45.251.33.225 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, do text-only logos qualify for copyrighting under any circumstances? AFAIK they shouldn't but I'm curious (I'm the same IP that explained the difference between the logos. please don't ping or message me, as I am on a dynamic IP range). 45.251.33.215 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The concept of threshold for originality varies from country to country; some like the US have a comparitively high threshold, while others like the UK have a comparitively low threshold. So, whether a simple text logo is going to be considered eligible for copyright protection depends upon the laws of the country of origin and how the courts have ruled. See c:COM:FONT for more on this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia History Questions

I want to know a few things:

1. What was the first Wikipedia page? 2. What was the first presidential election to be put on Wikipedia? 3. Who made Wikipedia? xdude (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Xdude gamer. Start by reading History of Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Xdude gamer. Please see List of presidential elections. If you mean US election, I believe the first was the 1788–89 United States presidential election.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 17:03, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I mean the first one ever put on Wikipedia.

My bets kind of fall on 2000. xdude (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

@Xdude gamer: that is not the kind of information that is particularly easy to find out – it might not even be possible to do so. There must be thousands of articles about presidential elections, and even if you limit yourself to the English-language version of Wikipedia you'd have a pretty stiff job going through them all. The Teahouse is for questions about editing Wikipedia, so it is not really the best place to ask this kind of question. --bonadea contributions talk 17:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. Just trying to ask questions. xdude (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's okay – sorry if I sounded dismissive. I think the Village Pump might be a better place for questions about the history of Wikipedia, though. --bonadea contributions talk 18:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Xdude gamer might find illumination in the article History of Wikipedia and others linked from it. For what it's worth, no such article appears in Wikipedia:First 100 pages. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.35.136 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft Expansion

Hello, I've started an article on 'Sona' restaurant by Priyanka Chopra. Please help me to expand the article Draft:SONA New York.

Thanks in advance... YogeshWarah^Talk 18:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The draft currently has no references to reliable independent sources, such as are needed to establish that the restaurant is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. The sources it does cite are all based on statements made by Chopra, and so not independent. If you haven't been able to find any acceptable sources, I doubt anyone else can. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

After searching, and failing to find any reliable independent sources that discuss the restaurant, I've realised why: it hasn't opened yet. No wonder it has no independent reviews. I suggest that you wait until it's been open for a couple of months. It should then be easier to find the sources that Wikipedia requires. Maproom (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Doane Tigers Draft

Hello, I am making a Draft article for the Doane Tigers football seasons from 2010 to 2019 (I think it is "notable", because WP:NSEASONS says that multiple seasons may be grouped together). And I'm putting summaries in the season sections with CFB Game templates, but after I put in the template, everything that comes after it appears in the box. Is there any way I can fix this. (The Draft is at User:BeanieFan11/Doane Tigers football, 2010–2019) Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, BeanieFan11, and welcome to the Teahouse. Since nobody had picked this up, I had a look: it baffled me (I even looked at the HTML source). Eventually I looked at another article which used those templates, and found that the last {{AFB game box scoring entry}} needs a parameter LastEntry=yes, or it doesn't work. This parameter is mentioned on the template documentation page, but I think it could do with a large friendly warning saying "You must use this or the world will come to an end". Note, by the way, that so far your draft does not have a single reference which is independent of the subject, and so does not establish notability and has no chance of being accepted as an article. --ColinFine (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Appropriateness of images in an article

I recently removed a significant number of images from Truth (after consensus with other members) because they did not comply with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images. The matter of concern here is an excessive number of allegorical paintings that add no meaningful knowledge to the philosophical topic at hand (which violates the Wikipedia style guide. In Justice, There are 12 images in total of the Lady Justice, including particularly artistic interpretations where she is nude and then some large paintings where you can hardly make out the allegory. Of course at least one of these works of art, preferably a sculpture of lady justice outside a house of court should remain in the article, but I feel the remaining 10/11 works of are are a extraneous.

Since I've already done something like this in Truth, I was wondering if I am overreaching by modifying another article with a similar issue. Again, the images break the Wikipedia style considerably so should not have been there in the first place. Personally speaking, I took action for Truth because it immediately stood out to me that this is not how a high quality encyclopedia article should look and the changes I made were to move it towards a higher quality article by removing the unnecessary images.

Your feedback on the following questions would be appreciated:

• Since multiple wiki articles have the same issue, which is an obvious break from the style guides, am I missing some unwritten rule that says that articles in philosophy need to be decked in renaissance paintings as if it were the louvre?
• If those renaissance images should be removed, should I go looking around for other articles in philosophy where the same problem occurs?
• Do you have any idea why some Wikipedia editors add these figurative paintings to a topic on philosophy? Neither Britannica nor the other more formal philosophy encyclopedias (IEP and Stanford EP) do this, so this must be a homegrown Wikipedia aesthetic???

Reference: Previous justification made to removing the images in Truth, Talk:Truth#Improving the quality of images in this article. TranquilDragon (talk) 23:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi TranquilDragon. Lots of Wikipedia articles which display images of one type or another. Most of the times these might be format/syntax issues, but sometimes they are contextual/copyright issues. If you find any of these articles and you feel you can address the problem, then you can be WP:BOLD and do so. However, it might be wise (particularly if the problem is contextual) to at least check the article's talk page first to see if there's been any discussion about the way images are used being used because a WP:CONSENSUS might exist on the image. If you want to dig even deeper, you can check the page history to see who added the image and perhaps why it was added. A consensus can change over time, but you shouldn't ignore an existing consensus without at at least starting a discussion about it. Anyway, if you remove a file and someone restores, you should treat it like a "content dispute" and engage in talk page discussion, unless there's really clearly a serious problem with the image like a copyright or BLP violation.

If you want to going around looking for images inappropriately added to philosophy articles, you can. Cleaning up problem articles is an important part of being WP:HERE and with over six million articles, there's always going to be something that needs cleaning up. You might, however, want to at least discuss what you intend to do on the talk page of the relevant WikiProject (e.g. WT:PHILOSOPHY) to let others in on what you're intending to do. You might find others willing to help, but you might find others with a different take a things who might suggest a different approach. Sometimes doing too much too quickly can attract attention no matter how good your motives are and others might prefer things be discussed first just to establish a consensus one way or the other out of principle.

Wikipedia is edited by people from all over the world and everyone is a WP:VOLUNTEER; so, why people make certain edits is sort of a mystery in many cases. Many editors think you could never have enough images in an article; so, they add them whenever they can. Most of the time these are just good-faith attempts at improving the article and making it more interesting for readers. I think that's one of the strengths of a "homegrown" project like Wikipedia, but in can also lead to some inconsistencies as well that you might not find in a more formal and more rigorously controlled publication like the ones you mentioned. Nobody vets Wikipedia edits before they're made; so, the best that can be done is to try and cleanup problems as we find them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Marchjuly. In the previous article (Truth) there were several attempts by previous editors to get some images removed in the Talk page, but all of these were shut down by another editor on the basis of censorship. Finally when I arrived on the scene, I wrote up a long piece on the fact that it was an unnuanced application of the style guide to call censorship and in fact there were several other issues with including those images as well. This helped me gain a degree of concensus with, I think, three other editors backing me and none against.

While I think I could do the same (post on Talk and build concensus), I feel your suggestion to discuss first on WT:PHILOSOPHY would be better since otherwise I would have to write a long justification every time I make similar edits to an article. Besides, I feel like I've condensed some of the common ways the Wikipedia style guide is misused in Philosophy articles and this might be helpful for all other Philosophy articles in the future especially since the Philosophy style guide on images Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Philosophy#Images is pretty sparse and could include several phyilosophy specific applications of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images.

A couple more questions:

• How do I find which WikiProject an article belongs to (e.g. Justice -> Philosophy)? Is it from the box at the bottom of the page (this simply takes me to the Philosphy article and not the WikiProject page however)? File:Justice-bottom-box.jpg
• There is a Law portal next to the Justice portal - does this mean the article also belongs to a 'WikiProject Law'?
• Also, does every Wikipedia article have a WikiProject it belongs to?

Thanks again, TranquilDragon (talk) 06:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

You can usually find out which WikiProjects cover an article by checking the top of the article’s talk page for WikiProject banners. WikiProject banners help with categorization, assessments, etc. and ideally every article probably should belong to at least one WikiProject if possible; however, many do not because whomever created the article either didn’t know about WikiProjects or didn’t think it was necessary. Even when there are banners on the talk page, sometimes they’re might not be really applicable. — Marchjuly (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

How can I can be a much better Wikipedia editor? Zahsj (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

First, write better Edit summaries. Writing "Changing" for every one of your edits is bad. Second, see what constitutes a 'minor' edit (Help:Minor edit). Third, stop making small wording changes in existing articles when the existing wording has no problems (especially at Good Articles). Fourth, when you update population numbers, you have to provide an update reference. David notMD (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Zahsj: To expand on what David notMD noted about edit summaries, those are there for the benefit of both other editors and you. An edit summary should give those reading the 'View history' section an idea of the kind of changes that were made, not just that a change was made – after all, an edit, by definition, is a change. So for example, in your edit to the article World War II, a good edit summary might have been "Added exact dates to first paragraph in lead section." For more information, please see the 'Help' page for edit summaries. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

New User would like experienced editor to work with me

Would anyone (experienced editor) be willing to help me establish a sitting politician's wiki entry?

I am new to wiki world, but I am an experienced journalist and copyeditor. Fast learner.

Thanks! Jackson Friedman (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Jackson, and welcome to the Teahouse! I don't necessarily have to be the only person who can help you out here (other people can jump in too), but count me in if you need any assistance. Would you mind giving the name of the politician just so I can make sure they pass Wikipedia's inclusion crtieria? If they don't pass notability guidelines, then there's nothing I or anyone else here can do, but these guidelines are decently lenient, and if the politician does meet them, then I can give you as much help as you need. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Where to report an instance of a shared account

Near the tail end of the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zhou Chengzhou, which some of you may have seen here the other day, the article's creator stated, in attempting to rebut claim that the article was an undisclosed autobiography: "Due to the IP address‘s problems. So I can't use my own account to edit. So I can just only use Zhou Chengzhou's own account to edit. The statement was never edited by him."

I don't think anyone in the discussion picked up on this, but this seems like a direct violation of WP:NOSHARING and an admission thereof, not to mention an admission of undisclosed COI editing. Essentially: "No, this is not an undisclosed autobiography. I actually just know Zhou Chenzhou and am using his account to create and edit the article about him." I was wondering if there's a sockpuppetry noticeboard where I could report this information. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

May be moot, given that the article has been deleted, and the editor in question has shown little interest in editing anything else. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Swap page title with one of a page title redirecting to the first page

Hi. I have recently made some edits to CGTG-102 including the fact that its name has changed to ONCOS-102. However, I am unable to move the page as ONCOS-102 already existed, and now reedirects to CGTG-102. Is there a way to swap the page titles so that CGTG-102 becomes the redirect, and ONCOS-102 becomes the main page title.

Thanks!

Edit - Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Swapping_two_pages Could do this but I think requires an administrator?

 YorkshireExpat (talk) 10:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: Done. No history swap was needed, because the redirect did not have a major page history that needed preserving. (This could have been requested using {{db-move}} ({{db-move|1=page to be moved|2=reason}}), or by posting to WP:RM#TR). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Is "The Kid Icon"a notable figure?

 The Kid Icon (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The Kid Icon Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That depends on who you are, what you do, and whether or not independent reliable sources give you significant coverage. Note that Wikipedia discourages autobiographical articles, see WP:AUTO. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Based on [2], no. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Another attempt at autobiography

Hey, I am new to Wikipedia and today tried to publish an article about myself, but it declined, please help me Rshtun1993 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(Added a section title) David notMD (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a website host. Nothing in what you submitted (Draft:Rshtun Babayan) suggests you qualify as Wikipedia-notable. Rather, it is promotional of your business. Articles require refs written about the topic. David notMD (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Further, Rshtun1993, they require independent references. Nothing said, written, or published by you or your associates will count. --ColinFine (talk)

Primary versus secondary sources

If I'm using a source that is published by a reliable secondary source but the content is an interview with the subject of the Wikipedia article is that then a primary source? If the source heavily relies on what the subject of the Wikipedia article said that seems less like a secondary source and more like a primary one. TipsyElephant (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: There's a nice essay about this at Wikipedia:Interviews. GoingBatty (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft Delete

Help me to delete this article Draft:Falguni Nayar, because it is not written in formal tone/ encyclopedia model. Kindly help me to delete that draft. Logical Puzzle (talk) 13:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Logical Puzzle: Welcome to the Teahouse! If the only problem with the draft is that it is not written in a formal tone, you could help reword the draft, or provide suggestions on the draft's talk page. If the draft does not become an article, it will be deleted after 6 months of inactivity. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi Logical Puzzle. Assuming this is not improved and resubmitted, the draft will be deleted after six months of inactivity under section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD). Unless you find that a draft meets some other basis for speedy deletion (e.g., it's a blatant copyright violation from it's first revision and meets CSD G12, or is such a blatant advertisement that it meets CSD G11), G13 is the normal way drafts are deleted, if not accepted. The only other option is to list it for a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (MfD), but generally speaking it's a waste of community resources to take up time on deletion discussions for the average draft, when it will be ministerially deleted in the normal course under G13.

I don't see anything unusual about this draft that would make it a good candidate for MfD, nor do I see any other speedy deletion basis that applies. And not incidentally, it's not that bad a draft. You say it's not written in the necessary "formal tone..." That's not a deletion basis and is exactly what the draft space is good for: a place to incubate a proposed article so things like lacking a suitable formal tone can be fixed. Meanwhile, I think your edits tagging it with numerous speedy deletion tags that do not apply, continuing to do so quite a few times, and blanking the content, are inappropriate and rather disruptive. Please stop doing that. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Logical Puzzle temporarily blocked from editing the article in question. LP created account on 26 March, and all edits have been attempts to delete draft or cut content from the draft in question. David notMD (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I want to create an article about Ajay Goenka

hi, i want to create an article about Ajay Goenka. i want an editor to see if this article will be accepted or not before i begin editing. i mean anyone can tell me if Ajay Goenka is a notable person or not. thanks in advance. Ismail2212 (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ismail2212 . What would be needed to make an assessment of his notability—the evidence needed on which to ground an opinion as to whether creating an acceptable article would seem possible—is the existence of a number of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat him in substantive detailTemplate:Z21 on which an article could be written with verifiable content. Without knowing which Ajay Goenka your post regards (there appear to be multiple individuals with that name), conducting any sort of targeted search for the right type of sources, with a sufficient depth of treatment of him, seems a difficult task. Also, since you are the person who is interested in creating such an article, I think would be best if you did that legwork. Being aware of the standard, if you were to post back indicating the sources you have found, we could then take a look and advise further based on them. Please remember though: you're looking for sources of a very specific type. I emphasize this because we often see people advised to look for reliable, secondary, independent sources with substantive treatment, and in reponse we see a mix of sources that are one or more of "unreliable", "primary", "connected" ones, that "merely mention" the subject. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:47, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

thanks Fuhghettaboutit. I am talking about Dr.Ajay Goenka. i can provide sources like Google news, is that enough? can i create it in my sandbox then submit it for review before publishing? thanks!!😁 --Ismail2212 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your sandbox is fine Ismail2212 for a very preliminary draft that others can take a quick look at. Don't worry about making it comprehensive. Just add your own words to summarize what you find in four or so good (see above) sources. Or you can go for the full WP:AfC process and formally submit it when ready. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Ismail2212, nad welcome to the Teahouse. Google News is not a news source: it is an aggregator, which collects news items. Some of them are from reliable sources, some are not; some will be independent of the subject, some may not be. Your citations should in most cases not even mention Google News, but should name (and link to) the actual source, so that people reading can easily judge whether it is likely to be a reliable source or not. --ColinFine (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ismail2212: is this the Bhopal paediatrician, or the one charged in relation to the Viyapam scam [3] (whatever that is)? Or are they the same person? I’d say, list the sources you could find, and write two lead sentences "Ajay Goenka is a ... . He is known for ..." If you have trouble stating what he's known for, then maybe he's not notable. Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:23 Mon 29, AEDT) 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Drafts

is there any way to get your draft reviewed faster or do ya just gotta be patient? Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: The draft template suggests adding WikiProject templates to the talk page, and you're already doing that. Other than that, you just have to be patient. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

and, Gandalf the Groovy, in practice, calling to attention in any reasonable manner can ofter help. Several editors assisted by making minor correction, and I accepted it. This doesn't mean it's perfect, but anything further can be done in mainspace. The first step, I thin., would be adding full information for the items in the Bibliography. Now that you know how to write biographical articles, just go ahead in mainspace. I suggest that there are probably many other writers in that period who do not yet have articles. WP is noted for its multiplicity of formal rules, but also for the many editors who help out whenever they see something they find interesting. DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

New Article and Editing on Wiki

Thanks for inviting me to the Tea House. I'm loving Wikipedia.

My account is just 3 days old.

1. How do I submit my article to the live space so its visible to all?
2. I have photos from our official photographer but Wikipedia keeps showing error messages when I try to upload/submit them. How can I bypass this problem?
3. Lastly, how do I create/add a template/box showing details like name, occupation, siblings, spouse on the right side of my article?

These will be helpful so I can contribute more and also help edit some of the content I have seen so far. Mister Ishmael (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Mister Ishmael Your draft, at User:Mister Ishmael/sandbox appears to have a copyright conflict with https://www.accessgambia.com/information/oko-drammeh.html and also possibly with https://thepoint.gm/africa/gambia/article/profile-of-oko-drammeh-gambian-music-promoter. In addition none of the content has in-line references. I leave your other questions to other Teahouse hosts. David notMD (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mister Ishmael, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's nice to be able to welcome new, enthusiastic editors to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, you have chosen to underake the hardest task here - that of creating an article about a subject you are connected with, and with no prior editing experience or understanding of what is and isn't allowed. It is often best to spend some time making small edits to existing articles and gradually building up experience - rather like driving a car for the first time.

In its present form, your article at User:Mister Ishmael/sandbox stands little chance of being added to the encyclopaedia, although it is possible that the subject might be meet our notability criteria. You clearly indicate that you are connected with the subject, so please declare your Conflict of Interest, as described here. But if you are being paid, or an employee, then you must follow the guidelines at WP:PAID to disclose your connection. Please don't try to bypass the issue over photographs - if you did not take them, then you have no right to release them for commercial re-use. Only the copyright holder of the image can do that. Focus more on making the article more like a readable encyclopaedia page, and less like a biased, promotional CV. Try The Wikipedia Adventure to gain more experience of editing and ensure you stay Neutral at all times. I could say more, but I am being called to dinner! Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, Mister Ishmael, I echo what Nick Moyes said. Your question is a bit like saying "I'm new to building, but I've built a house and I want to know how to put the windowsin and the roof on". Unfortunately, until you have learnt the craft of building, and surveyed the land to make sure that it is fit to build on (= investigated whether your subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability), your house will probably fall down around you! --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

All content must be supported by in-line references (placed in the text), or else the draft will automatically be Declined. David notMD (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with this draft?

Can you specify the errors in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:European_Clinic_Maldives Nabyl8899 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

(created section title) David notMD (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The declining editor explained what was wrong with the draft. In short, it has no reliable, secondary sources. You can's use a .jpg on Commons as a source, nor the website of the organisation to show notability in Wikipedia's rather specific sense. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Rejected article

FYI

 – Heading created by Tenryuu

Why Da fuck was my article reejcted? Its about my YouTube channel!!! FaarizPlayz (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@FaarizPlayz: Welcome to the Teahouse. Your channel does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Also, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• @FaarizPlayz, to expatiate on what Tenryuu already told you above, which was/is very much apt, The problem is joining the collaborative project with the primary aim of using it as a medium to promote yourself constitutes what Wikipedia is definitely WP:NOT. Furthermore please tone down the invectives, cursing isn’t welcome here either. Celestina007 (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to the above, you referred to the reviewing editor as a "bich" (sic) and told another they suck. That's not a great way to start. Please read WP:NPA PrincessPersnickety (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@FaarizPlayz Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with articles about notable people. You do not meet the requirements, as those require other people having written published stuff about you. What you have created - your YouTube channel - counts zero for notability, regardless of how many followers. Sometimes the issue is just too soon (see WP:TOOSOON). David notMD (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@PrincessPersnickety: No [sic] necessary. This editor is clearly just following Mr. Mackey's advice. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

When you say “it wasn’t constructive” when I added some information to some articles, what do you mean by constructive? How do I make the information I add constructive?

 Epictrex (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Epictrex, and welcome to the Teahouse. You'll have to ask Donald Albury why he reverted your edits, but I'm guessing that it's because you added information and changed dates without providing any sources. You could reply to him on his user talk page, or on your own, pinging him; but since I've pinged him here, he'll probably see this discussion and answer you here. --ColinFine (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Epictrex, You have been adding fringe theories to articles without even attempting to cite reliable sources. I doubt you will find any source that the community regards as reliable that makes any connection between prehistoric cultures in Florida and Mayan civilization. If you think you have found a reliable source that does make such a connection, I advise you to introduce it on an article's talk page, and do not try to introduce such material into an article until and unless a consensus has been reached that such material and source(s) may be used in an article. - Donald Albury 22:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

please help me i am trying to give the kathak dancer her due respect by adding her name under her image but the bot is removing it every 12 hours what should i do

 Himanshushukla433 (talk) 20:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@Himanshushukla433 everybody wiki is not something we can add here. Fiddle Faddle 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I shall expand that, a bit. To state a fact, Wikipedia should have a Reliable Source, which is defined at great length in WP:RS. When something is said about a living person, the rule is most strictly enforced. Autobiography does not do the job. Something said in a blog or a wiki does not. For example, Wikipedia does not serve the purpose of a Reliable Source. Think if it were not that way. If the way Wikipedia knows something is true is, some other part of Wikipedia says so, we've got a circle unconnected to the real world. The site you are using, Everybody Wiki, is even worse, since for the most part nobody is checking and deleting unsupported statements. So, Wikipedia cannot say a thing is true just because that other Web site has a page that says it is. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Help

Guys, I do apologise for the editing of said pages, but i really need some help here please I'm trying to make some changes to a few Wikipedia pages i.e. Top Gun Maverick, Snake Eyes G.I. Joe Origins and List Of Paramount Films 2020-2029 but there's a user called Zack41Attack who claims my sources aren't accurately I literally always double check before editing. This user also believes that these websites are unreliable sources. skydance.com/film/top-gun-maverick and deadline.com/2020/08/paramount-pictures-new-republic-pictures-10-picture-cofinancing-deal-top-gun-maverick-1203018250/ MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@MOVIEFAN2001:@FaarizPlayz: The movie studios’ own websites are considered primary sources and so you should avoid using them if you can find a better source. Also WP:AGF. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:00, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Reviewers

Previous discussion : #Rejected article

WikiPedia, please provide better reviewers. Those reviewers are not telling what is causing the article to be rejected. They should leave better and more details telling me why they're rejecting. FaarizPlayz (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, FaarizPlays, and welcome to the Teahouse. I suggest you have a very careful read of What Wikipedia is not, because you clearly have no idea at all what Wikipedia is. It is a volunteer project: everybody who edits and manages it is here because they are choosing to spend their time helping to build an excellect encyclopaedia. That includes the reviewers, so Wikipedia has no way of "providing better reviewers". We don't have enough reviewers as it is, because reviewing is time-consuming and often difficult. The reviewers have told you precisely why your draft has been rejected: because promotion of any sort is forbidden on Wikipedia. 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. If such sources exist about you, then we could have an article about you. It would not belong to you, you would not control what was in it, and it would be based on what those sources say, not on what you say or want to say. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, FaarizPlayz. The reviewer left the following comment: "Zero independent sources and no indication that you pass WP:GNG." Your references are to your own work. That is not acceptable. You appear to be writing an autobiography, which is strongly discouraged. Please read Your first article. Please also read the conflict of interest policy, and the notability guideline for entertainers. It is your obligation to show that you are notable and to write a draft that complies with policies and guidelines. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia: Content Analysis, "Additional annotation" to sources as suggested in "Wikipedia:Citing sources" does not seem to work.

Problem solved. I now see the pattern that after a "|" there has to be a parametername + "=". In "Wikipedia:Citing sources", where you write, "Sometimes ... it is useful to include additional annotation in the footnote, for example to indicate precisely which information the source is supporting", I recommend you explain to users HOW to do that. I used |id=. Something like |freetext=, |annotate=, |comment=, |remark=, or |rem= would be transparent and mnemonic, if they exist. I did not try guessing any of them, since |id= worked. You might have a different parameter you prefer, perhaps something undocumented at Wikipedia:Citation templates, but I can't imagine what would be wrong with using |id= even if this was not its original purpose. I hope this is okay. Note added next morning, as a tip for users: overnight "DUP-" warnings were applied to duplicate uses of any parameter (in my case, |url= and |id=) within a single <ref>, so the lesson is that a parameter name cannot be duplicated inside a given <ref>, yet it had seemed to work at first, so I wonder why it is secondarily forbidden. Surial57 (talk) 03:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What if I find a reliable source to a “fringe theory”? Will my edits to the topic not be undone? Also, how do I correctly cite a source on Wikipedia? I tried to cite my source with proof that the ancient Mayans settled in Florida.

 Epictrex (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Epictrex, welcome to Teahouse. Have a look at WP:CITE, WP:REFB, WP:IC, and WP:YFA. These links describe how referencing is done. –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 04:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Epictrex. When your edits are reverted, the next step is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page, which is Talk:Crystal River Archaeological State Park in this case. There is a lot of discussion on various websites about whether the Mayan people may have colonized Florida. We need to use high quality academic sources for controversies like this. Good examples are peer-reviewed articles in respected academic journals on archaeology, or on-topic books published by university presses. Do not repeatedly try to re-insert the content if other editors disagree. See edit warring. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Epictrex. You're doing fine. It's not a fringe theory that the Mayans visited Florida. I mean they had boats and its not that far. It's fine to include material about it! However, it has to be done right. So, you're talking about the Crystal River Archaeological State Park article. So first, while it is true that the Mayans may have visited Crystal River Archaeological State Park, there's no proof of it either. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't -- that's worth saying, but its all we can really say.

So to say the Mayans may have visited is not fringe. To state that there was a Mayan city there -- that's not supported by any evidence I don't think. There are four carved faces or something, that's not a city. That's why the other editor said if was "fringe", but the important thing she said is that you have to add references when you add or change something. Which is correct.

OK, so I see that actually there is some material about this already in the article, at the end of the "History" section:

The park is also home to a limestone slab, possibly a "stele", on which is a crudely carved human face and torso. This is odd because the slab is one that is not found on other mound sites except in locations such as the Caribbean, South America, and Central America. At this particular site there were at least four of these large stones placed by the inhabitants in their ancient time. This carving shows that the person represented possessed long hair in a plume over the left shoulder. There has been debate as to how strongly this inscribed stone slab was influenced by the monumental stelae of Mesoamerica. Although there may be some evidence for contact between the Huastec Culture of the Mexican Gulf Coast and the American Southeast, those claims which suggest the most direct connections are probably unfounded. The slab is today housed on the site within a metal cage.

And there are four refs in the paragraph. It says "Mesoamerica" instead of "Mayan" (which might be clearer) but it's already making the point you were wanting to make pretty much,

We could maybe rewrite the paragraph to make it clearer. But to say "the Mayans definitely visited this place" or "there was a Mayan city here", we'd need new references. You're not going to find references for that because a few stones doesn't prove much.

So... it's good to be enthusiastic about Mayan culture spreading. It's a fascinating subject. You might, if you look, find a new ref such that you can add "However, Professor Pinkcney Puddle of Florida University recently that the faces indicate that there probably were some Mayan settlers there" or whatever. If there's such refs out there, go get 'em! And then use them to support material you want to add or change. To see how you put in refs, you can start by looking at the refs that are already in the article and kind of copy that form. Happy wiki'ing! Herostratus (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Concerns regarding article description edits not appearing/not being logged in the "History" of an article

Hi! Thanks in advance to anyone that can help. Several months ago, I realized that after adding a description to an article, I frequently would not see a change in the app - I assumed this was a technical glitch. However, after frequently checking an article for several months without seeing an update on the app, I discovered my "change" hadn't been saved. I was shocked to see in the browser version in the "History" tab it appears I never made an edit at all on this article - despite me still seeing the exact change, date, and time of this addition in the mobile app "Edits" section. Checking several articles now, I have a recording of my change in the mobile app, but it is not showing as changed on the mobile articles themselves, nor on the website or on the History page for each article. Examples:

• Article description on Hatsune Miku - my edit is dated Dec 31, 2020 02:26
• Article description on Flavivirus 5' UTR - my edit is dated March 11, 2012 00:46
• Article description on Peak 5390 - my edit is dated Dec 2, 2020 23:57

There are also examples where my description additions were definitely added + are showing in the mobile version and using the "Short description" label in the article source on the browser, in addition to my "Edits" area on the mobile app having logs of them, but they are not showing on the "History" tab of the browser version. An example would be Phil Knight.

Even more confusing, the app is claiming that each of these edits (the ones that are not showing) has a certain number of views - again, edits that don't appear to have saved in any capacity. I'm starting to wonder if any of my 300+ contributions were completely useless, and am hoping I am missing something here. I can confirm I am correctly signed into this account via the mobile app! TheMusicGirl (talk) 06:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Flavivirus doesn't have anything before Aug 2020 or anything after Sept 2020, and there's no indication it was deleted or moved elsewhere that I can see. The other two, I don't see any evidence this account, or an IP, committed any edit in that time frame (I am assuming the time given is UTC). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 06:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheMusicGirl: I'm pretty sure using the app to set descriptions actually sets them on Wikidata, instead of locally. Check out d:Special:Contributions/TheMusicGirl. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheMusicGirl: The English Wikipedia has chosen to not display Wikidata descriptions. See Wikipedia:Short description. Your Wikidata description at Phil Knight (Q557305) was imported (copied) to the English Wikipedia by another editor.[4] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheMusicGirl: to be really clear, because I've seen other editors caught by this: (1) the app changes the description at Wikidata, not here, and your changes are logged at Wikidata (2) Wikidata descriptions are not automatically shown in the English Wikipedia, so the changes you made won't appear here unless you also manually add them to the relevant article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: @Elli: @PrimeHunter: @Peter coxhead: thank you all for your prompt and informative responses! I am now looking over the Wikipedia:Short description page and what you are all saying makes sense. I'll be honest - I wish I had known this (it looks like the change was just made last year) so that a lot of my worries would not have been so strong. While I see why they did it, I think it's a bit misleading to have the link to change the description (Wikidata) in the exact place where the short description (Wikipedia) shows with no indication it's actually on another page and doesn't actually impact the one you are reading at all. Is there a place to discuss suggested changes to the app like this, to indicate this more clearly? I've been trying to find it using Google and the Wikipedia:Request directory but cannot find something that seems to meet my needs. Thank you all again!

@TheMusicGirl: You might want to look at this. Zoozaz1 talk 03:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new.

Hello, I'm D, or dotu. I'm a new user on Wikipedia, and I've had some experience with editing on wikis, although not much. I want to mainly help fight vandalism, but I also want to help out in other areas of Wikipedia, maybe even creating articles later on. Where do I start? dotu (Dotumantaraye) (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dotumantaraye: Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. When you want to help with fighting vandalism, Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, and more speficially Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy may be of interest. For other taks, the WP:Task Center can serve as a starting point. Victor Schmidt (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

DOUBTS

Let me know whether Deepinder Goyal, founder of Zomato is a notable person? Help me please, I'm planning to write an article about him. Logical Puzzle (talk) 07:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't be bothered to research somebody I've never heard of. Here's a better idea: You provide the links to what you consider to be the three most substantial sources (which of course must be reliable, and independent of him), and one or two people here will click on these links and comment on this man's "notability" for you. -- Hoary (talk) 09:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:NOTINHERITED, Logical Puzzle. If Goyal has only ever been associated with Zomato, it seems unlikely he will be independently notable, although he could be through philanthropy, books written etc. If you can find sufficient WP:SIGCOV sources that are not just based on interviews, you may be OK. As already suggested, posting these here, without any further text, would allow people to give you more advice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Want to create an Article about our University can anyone help me please

 KevinAmenya (talk) 10:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello KevinAmenya And welcome to the Teahouse! Start with WP:NSCHOOL. If you conclude "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem", move on to WP:YFA and WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft

How to delete a redirected draft page? Logical Puzzle (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Only an administrator can delete a page. So, I suggest you read through WP:DELETE to first figure out whether there's really a need for the page to be deleted. If there is, then the next thing you need to figure out is which of the the deletion process is the best way to request that the page be deleted. I've noticed that you've been blocked from editing Draft:Falguni Nayar for some reason. If the page you want deleted has anything to do with that draft, I would just leave it be and stay as far away as possible from anything to do with that draft or any pages associated to it until your block has run out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

repeated recreation of an article

Next discussion : #Creation Protected Article

 TahiraY.Awan (talk) 12:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC) my article is restricted for a while due to repeated recreation what should I do?

I suppose that you mean "An article about [subject] is impossible to create, because, I'm told, of repeated re-creation. I want to create it. What should I do?" If this is indeed what you mean, then you should do nothing. Give up. (Although you're welcome to edit on other, unrelated subjects.) Or do you mean something else? -- Hoary (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – User's only page creation is at User:TahiraY.Awan/sandbox, deleted per U5. Pinging Fastily. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Trains using St. Louis Union Station

I cobbled together a list of the passenger trains that used St. Louis Union Station after finding out there wasn't one. It's a word document and not in Wikipedia format and I'm a bit of a luddite but if anyone would like to make it right for Wikipedia I'd be happy to pass it on. Murv2 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Murv2: The infobox at Union Station (St. Louis) has a very long (probably too long) list of train services already. Does your document duplicate this information? If not, and your document has proper sourcing to reliable sources, you may choose to be bold and do it yourself, or leave a message at the talk page describing your proposed changes in depth. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of info in there, but this list does not contain the same informtion. It inclueds the railroad, name of train and final destination. This list would provide a crossreference to the wikipedia list of passenger trains railroads running to St Louis Union Station specifically. I'm not interested in learning to edit Wikipedia but thought there was a need. I'd be happy to share the document if there were people interested in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murv2 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself from say another page or language?

Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself, from say another page or language? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocusfleur (talk • contribs) 11:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

A simple answer is that as anyone can edit Wikipedia, the Wikipedia articles are not considered verified. The solution: if there is information in a Wikipedia article that you want to use, copy the content AND the references supporting that content (remembering to acknowledge in the Edit summary where the information was copied from). Or, copy the refs and paraphrase the content, again acknowledging source for the references. As for other languages, Wikipedia English has different standards for what are considered reliable source references, so referenced content in a non-English Wikipedia may not be valid in English Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

To add to that answer, this would essentially be a circular reference, i.e. "This is right because I say it's right". Circular references are basically useless when it comes to verifiability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 20:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I am currently working on a draft about Reveley Island, a small island off the coast of Western Australia, because information for that island is only on the Swedish Wikipedia, and the Cebuano Wikipedia because of Lsjbot. I was denied, because I cited from said Wikipedias. What was written in those articles was valid information, so it's a pity I could not use that. Crocusfleur (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crocusfleur (talk • contribs)

• Note: the above is copied and pasted from Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1100#Why cannot Wikipedia cite itself, from say another page or language?. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Crocusfleur: If foreign language articles have valid information which is verified in the sources they quote (which is a pretty standard rule right across Wikipedia), then you can make the addition of the information here on English Wikipedia and cite those sources. We allow foreign-language sources, even for articles on English-speaking countries like Australia. If you translate large portions from these other Wikis to add here, then you need also to read WP:TRANSLATE. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• @Crocusfleur: Please don’t copy-and-paste Teahouse threads which have already been archived back on to the main Teahouse page. If you have a follow-up question, please start a new thread and provide a link to the archived thread instead. If you don’t know how to link to the archived thread, just mention that your previous question has been archived already. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Draftify deleted articles

Hello. There were recently some AfDs about Argentine films from the mid-20th century. I have got a book about them and would like to see if I can make them over and restore them. Where do I find someone to draftify the articles associated with the following?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ritmo nuevo y vieja ola
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Primer beso
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Habilitado

Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Post a message on the talk page of the administrator who closed the AfDs and explain what you want to do and why per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Perhaps they will draftify the article for you. — Marchjuly (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: And if they don't reply to my comment on their talk page in over two weeks? That's where we are now. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My apologies DiamondRemley39. I didn't realize you had already done that. All editors (including administrators) are WP:VOLUNTEERs and sometimes they get WP:BUSY. I posted a message on TheSandDoctor's user talk page about your Teahouse question; so, perhaps they will see it and respond about "Ritmo nuevo y vieja ola". There is, however, a message on their user page stating "This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries." In addition, if you click on the "Edit" tab for their user talk page, you see a notice at the top that suggests trying the Teahouse, the Help Desk or IRC chat if you're looking for a speedy reply. The Teahouse and the Help Desk are pretty much the same, but I think IRC chat might work for you. You can also try leaving a general message about this at WP:AN to see if another administrator can help you. The "El Habilitado" was deleted by a different administrator; so, you youhaven't done so already, try posting a message on their user talk page asking for the article to be restored as a draft. Once again, if a few days pass without a response, you can try IRC chat or AN. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39: You should have no problem with the second one, since a soft deletion was specified by the closer. Just make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and the article should be restored to mainspace, without the need for draftification. Then you can work on it. Deor (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Deor: Thanks, just did so. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39, Deor, and Marchjuly: Apologies for the delay in my response. Yes, I have been quite busy unfortunately. I have draftified the first two. If JJMC89 doesn't object, I can restore that one as well. If a hand is needed with any others I have closed, I can see about draftifying them too. Other admins should be consulted for their closes, but they arent the only ones who can restore. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Missing article on the xC programming language

I am considering starting an article on the "xC" programming language. This is a language related to the occam (programming language) both in theory and in the design process and some of the people involved. xC is a proprietary language, with a free toolset (xTIMEcomposer) by the company XMOS.

I am a retired programmer who use the xC language a lot, and also blog about it. But I also have a disclaimer there that contains "I have no affiliation with any of the companies or persons I mention in my notes. I have no ads, there’s no money involved, no gifts are accepted. No donations, no affiliate advertisements, no rewards and no supporter support! It’s entirely a hobby with no income of any sort. Just fun and expenses." So I have nothing to do with XMOS except for the few support mails.

I am also affiliated with the local university NTNU in Trondheim, Norway: where I work with real-time / concurrency programming related matters, mostly as a censor.

I consider that the xC language really is in need of a Wikipedia page.

How do I proceed to make sure that such an article has enough notability for Wikipedia not to want to delete it later on?

I would consider the fact that it is proprietary as the biggest obstacle to finding independent sources, but it certainly is visible in the Tiobe index at https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/programming-languages-definition/. Plus, when the occam page managed to get this notability, it should be possible to also find such sources for xC.

I am a little uncertain about "xC" or "XC", I'd have to query about this. XMOS seem to use it spelt either way.

I was thinking to start it at first and add { {compu-prog-stub} } to it. That would be needed. Making such an article not being a programming manual is also challenging.

PS. I discoverd that there was no xC page when I added it to the LLVM page the other day. Øyvind Teig (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Aclassifier, and welcome to the Teahouse. As with all Wikipedia articles on any subject, the first and most important question is whether or not the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability, which mostly translates into: Are there enough reliably published independent sources about it? Being propriertary is not an issue, but if that means that there is little about it that is not written or published by the team or the company who produce it, then it will not be notable, and there is no point in your spending any time trying to create an article about it. --ColinFine (talk)

The demographic of manga Pokemon Adventures

Just want to ask for help. Regarding the classification of Pokemon Adventures, it should be both a children's and a shonen manga.

I have discussed on the discussion page, but no consensus was reached. The other party insisted that according to the serialized magazine, this manga should only be classified as children's manga. I don’t know if I digress too much on the discussion page, causing the other party maybe to think that I am distorting the facts and ignoring my arguments.

But I also listed many Japanese bookstore websites that classified Pokemon Adventures as a shonen (少年) manga (actually more than what I listed). And the series was also serialized on Sunday Webery an online platform that apparently focuses on serializing shonen manga. And Sunday magazines (the famous shonen manga magazine) has held 55 serial manga projects for the 55th anniversary (2014), Pokemon Adventures Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire is included in them, as I posted on the discussion page. (It was serialized on Club Sunday at that time, an online platform operated by Sunday magazine (Sunday Webery is, too))

Even Japanese, Chinese, Thai, French and Italian, etc Wikipedia classified Pokemon Adventures as a shonen manga for many years (and these pages are constantly being edited.) (this not as a only point of view that I quoted.) And Japanese discuss this manga on the 5ch shonen manga branch for many years. https://medaka.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/ymag/1602078249/l50 2001:B011:C007:1EAA:53D:5182:4E1D:4DDB (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@2001:B011:C007:1EAA:53D:5182:4E1D:4DDB: I note that the article is currently in the categories for Shōnen manga and Children's manga. The ongoing discussion on the talk page will be the best place to try to gain consensus for keeping that categorization. You may also leave a note on the talk page for WikiProject Pokémon, where presumably there are subject matter experts. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK Orchestra

I've come for less of an answer and more of an opinion. What do you guys think caused such a lack of interest for AJR's new album that no one even made an article for it? It's rapidly approaching a high chart position and there's definitely enough coverage for it. (I know the whole "Wikipedia is edited by volunteers so maybe no one got to it" shpeel) What do you guys think? versacespacetalk to me 16:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

AJR discography has it and says it was only released on March 26th (i.e. last Friday). Only a small number of fanatical editors are likely to dive in that fast for a whole new article! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

And note that Draft:OK Orchestra has already been declined three times! Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I declined the draft primarily because the draft says nothing about its charting. If it is rapidly approaching a high chart position, then when it does achieve a high chart position, resubmit it with a reference to Billboard. If there is a special notability guideline for any type of article, read it and focus on it. The musical notability criteria are largely about charting, so a draft musical article should discuss charting. If there is a special notability guideline, address it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

putting photos in wikipedia

(Added header) Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

How do I add pictures to Wikipedia? }} Sqlook (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please read Wikipedia:Uploading images and Help:Pictures. Happy editing! Kleinpecan (talk) 16:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate topics

I have a question. Am I allowed to create an article on something already taken? For example, what if I wanted to write about an article on Canadians, but someone already rote about them? FaarizPlayz (talk) 16:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@FaarizPlayz: No. You cannot. But you are allowed to edit that article! versacespacetalk to me 16:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What if there something is written on other type of Wikipedia but not this one. Because I have heard of different types of Wikipedias for example wikitubia. Cam I write an article written on there but not on this original Wikipedia? FaarizPlayz (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Wikitubia is not related in any way to Wikipedia. "Wiki" in its name refers to a specific type of software and a Web site – "a hypertext publication collaboratively edited and managed by its own audience directly using a web browser"; for more info on that, see meta:Wikipedia is not Wiki. Wikitubia:Rules says your channel should have at least 1,000 subscribers. If your channel meets this criterion, then feel free to create an article there; if it doesn't, consider creating an article on Minitubia – "an unofficial YouTube wiki run by the same people as Wikitubia", which is "dedicated to YouTubers with under 1,000 subscribers!" Kleinpecan (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@FaarizPlayz: Wikipedia is in no way connected to Wikitubia. versacespacetalk to me 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Module: Infobox

I've noticed on certain British BLP pages in the infobox there is a value titled: "module". Why? How is this encyclopedic? When referring to WP Help: Infobox under "What should an infobox not contain?" there is the guideline: Trivial details. I could understand if the subject was historic in nature such as Queen Victoria or Oscar Wilde and the sound byte was found within the article; but a BLP such as: Victoria Coren Mitchell is hardly a subject to include such content. I removed one found here: Miranda Hart. Before I remove this one, wondering if I'm missing something of importance. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Maineartists. Template:Infobox person specifically says that the module {{listen}} can be used within it. For a broadcaster like the examples you cite, I should have thought that a short extract of their voice is not trivial information but in fact rather important. If you disagree for any given BLP, you should take the issue up on the relevant Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Mike Turnbull Hi. 1. I'm hardly foreign to the Teahouse to be "welcomed", but thank you. Second, "can be" and "should be" are vast when it comes to the plethora of variety when found within the spectrum of Template:Infobox person. Third, there is nothing distinctive about either example that was presented in my OP that would warrant a "module" inclusion; especially since the linked BLP is a writer and professional poker player. My question was far more universal in nature; rather than a dismissive cliche that is not helpful at the Teahouse: "... you should take the issue up on the relevant Talk Page". All that being said, could you please explain the "why" to this statement: "I should have thought that a short extract of their voice is not trivial information but in fact rather important"? Are you actually suggesting that each BLP / subject on WP receive a module {{listen}} simply because it is offered within the value template of an "All Parameters" infobox? Maineartists (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Multiple accounts

Added header – NJD-DE (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

How to create more than 6 accounts on the website? NinjaStar871 (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't. If you read WP:Sockpuppetry you'll see that having excessive numbers of accounts will likely lead to other editors assuming you have some disruptive reason for doing that. There can be valid reasons for having more than one account (see WP:MULTIPLE) but if you do that, you should say so on each account's User Page, naming the others. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

what on earth were you planning on doing with six accounts? Paul ❬talk❭ 17:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Could be for MON-SAT, and on the seventh day, NinjaStar871 will rest. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I notice that NinjaStar871 has created four sandboxes, and I wonder if they think that these are somehow separate accounts? If so, NinjaStar:no, you are using one account, and you have so far created four sandboxes in that account. There is no limit on the number of sandboxes you may create. However, before you create any more, I suggest you have a read of your first article, because your existing sandboxes are nothing like Wikipedia articles: an article starts by finding the reliable independent sources that have significant coverage of the subject (and if you can't find these, give up, because no article on the subject will be accepted) and then writing from what those sources say, not from what you happen to know about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

New Articles

I created a new article about Ava Grace Cooper. I gave interview sources, her Instagram profile, and her IMBD link in the article but it says these are not good sources. Help Me! I want my article to be published. Erin.Sanders.2073 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Template:Erin.Sanders.2073 and welcome to the Teahouse. Basically, 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. None of the sources you have mentioned meet these criteria. --ColinFine (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Erin.Sanders.2073. The draft in question is User:Erin.Sanders.2073/sandbox/Ava Grace Cooper. Interviews are not independent and do not establish notability. Instagram and IMDb are not reliable sources, and her Instagram profile is not independent. YouTube videos are rarely useful. What you need to provide are references to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to Cooper. Please read Your first article for lots of good advice. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Erin.Sanders.2073. In addition to what ColinFine and Cullen328 said, I'm very concerned about the copyright statuses of the two Wikimedia Commons images used in the draft. Media on Commons is uploaded under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, and it appears your images are taken from the subject's Twitter account and created by a family member (thereby making the material owned by Ava Grace Cooper and/or the relative who took it) and from a Blogspot interview (no attribution given to the origin of the image on their webpage). Basically, unless you have the express, written permission of the owners of these (likely) copyrighted images, are the copyright holder of these images choosing to release them under a Creative Commons license, or know for a fact that these images have previously been released by their owners under one of these licenses, these images should be removed immediately. If one of the above criteria do apply, then more robust justification needs to be given in the images' descriptions. If you haven't already, please consult Wikipedia:Uploading images when deciding whether or not to upload an image to Wikimedia Commons or any of its sister projects, as what can and cannot be uploaded is usually very restrictive when it comes to copyright concerns.

However, I do want to temper all of what's been said here with a compliment: this article is formatted quite nicely. Were this subject to be able to pass notability criteria and were this article to use reliable sources in its citations, I believe the draft would take at most a few minutes for some finishing touches to be a decent article. Even if Ava Grace Cooper can't become an article just yet (see: WP:TOOSOON) because of notability criteria, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers is a great resource if you'd like help creating a new draft of another actor/actress or if you want to go about improving existing articles; we love having new editors come aboard. It can be really discouraging to have your first draft rejected for notability, but just remember that notability is never a reflection on you as an editor; it just means that there's not enough existing reliable, independent material to create an article off of. If I roped the 1000 most experienced editors on this project into creating an article about Ava Grace Cooper based on existing sources, they literally couldn't do it. If they all tried collectively to draft an article, it would be a funny spectacle, sure, but it would be rejected basically immediately in much the same way as Pahunkat and Bkissin declined your draft. If you have any further questions or would like help in any of your future endeavors on Wikipedia, please feel free to ask here or to contact me personally on my talk page. 😀

PS: If you have any questions about what a "reliable source" actually is, Wikipedia:Reliable sources should have you covered. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Waiting period for adding a new article that is time sensitive

Hello, I am a new contributor and have created an article for a specific soccer team's upcoming season (Union Omaha). The team's schedule for the upcoming season was only released this past week, and the season begins in less than a month, and I noticed that since I am a new contributor that my article submission may take four months to be approved. Is that a realistic estimate, or is it possible that the turnaround time will be much shorter?

Thank you in advance for any and all feedback. Nastybunch1117 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nastybunch1117: Articles are reviewed in no particular order, so it may be sooner. There is no need to rush. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for promoting the team's upcoming season. RudolfRed (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Nastybunch1117: Also, you haven't submitted it yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

(ec) I forgot to mention. The draft at Draft:Union_Omaha_2021_Season is not yet submitted for review. add {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft to put on the list for reviews. RudolfRed (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

question about sandbox

When I post something to my sandbox page, anyone watching my page will see that too? Is there a way to make my postings to the sandbox not be seen automatically by anyone watching my page? Just curious. Thank you! warshy ^(¥¥) 18:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I would think that someone would either have to REALLY LIKE you or REALLY DISLIKE you to bother to watch your Sandbox. Still it is part of W's public space. David notMD (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still not clear. My question is: if someone/anyone has my user page/talk page in his list of watched users for any reason, will he/she see any edits I make to my own Sandbox? I assume yes, from your reply but am not sure. And then the follow-up question: is there any way to restrict this visibility? Thanks a lot. warshy ^(¥¥) 19:52, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Warshy: If someone has your user page and talk page on their watchlist then it will not show edits to your sandbox. The sandbox is publicly visible but few or no people will see it in practice unless you ask them to. It's possible for others to put your sandbox on their watchlist but nobody will probably do that. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Confirming that it is possible to put your Sandbox on my Watchlist. That does not address ability to restrict watching, but I am guessing, not possible. David notMD (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

OK guys, thanks a lot! Prime Hunter's reply I believe answers my question, since I don't believe anyone on Wikipedia has ever or will ever bother to add my Sandbox to their watchlist. Thanks a lot again! Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

In fact, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know how I would access anyone's Sandbox unless he or she invited me, right? I tried to look for a Sandbox on your pages, but could find none... Never mind if it gets too complicated. Thanks a lot for the patience with my ignorance! warshy ^(¥¥) 23:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Warshy: The bottom of user contributions has a "Subpages" link. For me it links Special:PrefixIndex/User:PrimeHunter/. Others may also notice sandbox edits in your user contributions (but probably not bother to view them). There are various other ways to come by your sandbox more randomly, for example userspace searches, edits in Special:RecentChanges, or if you put categories on the sandbox (as you actually did in 2017 where somebody else removed them). The only truly private way is to only preview sandbox edits and save them offline, but that gives some annoying extra work. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Creation Protected Article

Creation protected page TahiraY.Awan (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

My article has been protected from creation due to rapid creation. How long shall this take to recreate it again?

TahiraY.Awan, Draft:Karl Lillrud has been salted indefinitely because it has been rapidly recreated. Recreating it under a different title, Draft:Freelancer, will not help either - pinging Robert McClenon, is this eligible for a G4? Pahunkat (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't answer the question about a G4 because it has already been deleted as G11. But sometimes efforts to game the naming of articles do not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@TahiraY.Awan:} Karl Lillrud is not notable (according to Wikipedia's definition of notability) and so there cannot be an article about him. Please tell your client/employer that. In the event that he becomes notable in the future he won't need to pay people to create articles about him – somebody who is not hired by him will probably create a neutrally written article (not an advert, like the recent efforts) about him at some point. He will not have any influence over the contents of such an article. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

TahiraY.Awan, Pahunkat, when you typed "rapid(ly)", I think you both meant "repeated(ly)". Creating an article rapidly is fine, though very difficult. Creating the same unnacceptable article repeatedly is provocative, and can result in its being salted, as here. Maproom (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Already asked, and answered, at "repeated recreation of an article". -- Hoary (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

A Comment About Paid Editors and Volunteers

Maybe some paid editors think that the volunteers who maintain Wikipedia and try to ensure its neutral point of view are ignorant or stupid because we are volunteers. So maybe some paid editors, and employers of paid editors, think that it is easy to outwit or trick the volunteers by stupid tricks such as changing the spelling of a name. Some of us (the volunteers) are smart enough so that sometimes trying to game the system doesn't work. Sometimes the volunteers are two or three steps ahead of efforts by paid editors to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

David St. Hubbins once said "It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Images and Their Usage on Wikipedia

I think I already asked this question once and didn't get an answer so if this is the wrong place to ask please direct me to the appropriate location.

I've been working on Category:Podcasting files and the subcategory Category:Podcast logos. I started improving the image data for podcast covers and making sure the non-free use rationales were accurate and complete when I came across a problem. I can't add files that are on Wikimedia commons to Category:Podcast logos (i.e. File:99pi.svg). Similarly, I was intending on creating a subcategory of Category:Podcasting files for images of podcasters or podcast company logos, but many of those images are on Wikimedia commons as well. Can I resolve this problem by clicking on "Add local description source," and if I do what would that entail? Is there a better course of action to resolve this problem? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant. Don't add Wikipedia categories to Commons files and don't create Wikipedia file pages for them. Click the Commons logo at the top right of File:99pi.svg to see the Commons file page commons:File:99pi.svg. There you can add Commons categories. It's already in two podcast categories. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Help , I can't seem to be able to get them to accept my article

Can someone please help me get my article published on here. I've tried re editing it like 3 times and I'm stil not sure if I'm doing it right . 2604:3D08:127C:E300:28F9:5657:5A48:56F9 (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The only contributions you've made with this IP address are to the Teahouse. What draft are you referring to? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm trying to create a page for my favorite band called The Old Limp Dicks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandpunk69 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Here is the page right here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandpunk69 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Newbie in need of some basic help

FYI

 – Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey I'm new here and need help creating an article for one of my favorite bands. I've tried multiple times to do this now and can't seem to get it. Please help me. 2604:3D08:127C:E300:28F9:5657:5A48:56F9 (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anybody out there please help me create an article for a musical group.

FYI

 – Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm in desperate need of help creating a wiki for my favorite band. Any help would be greatly appreciated Islandpunk69 (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Here is a link to my draft page. Please someone edit for me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islandpunk69 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sure, let me check 1друг (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Islandpunk69: Your fav band seems to be new. This doesn't have much reliable news coverage. I don't think this can be created. 1друг (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Islandpunk69: Agreed with 1друг, although I'll note that the band's age doesn't have anything to do with notability. This band just isn't covered anywhere in any reliable, independent sources (such as newspapers, magazines, books, etc.), let alone in substantial detail, as required by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Please see WP:TOOSOON for situations like this. I would also advise you not dedicate your entire user page to a link to the band's Facebook page, as it's toeing the line with our guidelines for promotional material on user pages. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Admin blocked page

Long before, based on @Hoary: help I submitted Draft:Adda52 to AFC but this is admin blocked, do I need to do something else?? 1друг (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: The page in question, Adda52, has been salted as a repeatedly created article that fits a criterion for speedy deletion (A7). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@1друг: other editors have decided that the topic is not notable and does not belong in Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adda52, and that your draft does not show significant changes since that discussion. As I said at User talk:1друг#Article creations, Companies are definitely not the area to start with—this is one of the hardest topics to get an article approved on, in no small part because most editors will treat such articles with extreme skepticism as most authors of such drafts have a conflict of interest and just want free advertising space on our site. — Bilorv (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu:, I just read about A7, also I want to share that @VersaceSpace: rejected this because it was deleted before. Fun fact, everyone deleted this under G4 because it got rejected in 2017 and later blocked. Please check the sources which I added. These are the sources of 2018 to 2021 of top journals of India (So old discussion doesn't apply). Kindly, comment on the sources and explain how it not notable. For A7, Please confirm from any poker fan about Adda52, everyone knows about it. @Bilorv:, thanks for guiding so long, I really appreciate your detailed reasoning. 1друг (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi 1друг. Instead of discussing this here at the Teahouse, maybe you should try discussing it with the administrator who last deleted the article at the AfD per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. --Marchjuly (talk) 08:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Thanks for the suggestion. I asked but he said even if he wants to he can't as he is no loner admin, now I don't know what to do. 1друг (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

1друг, The reason for being unable to re-create the article, "Repeatedly recreated A7 article" is incorrect. Adda52 was never speedy deleted via WP:A7 - "no indication of importance". Rather, it was deleted via a full deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adda52 which I closed as "delete"; however looking at the debate, it seems to have been something of a marginal case. I would advise you to carry on working on the draft, then if a reviewer accepts it for review (it is currently rejected), the protection can be lifted at that point. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thanks for letting me know about it. Please explain

1. carry on working on the draft: Is that mean, I need to add more content or sources? As per my basic understanding, I thought I am done because the sources are pretty good. 2. It's rejected in AFC because it was deleted in past, not because of my draft. 1друг (talk) 09:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Projects, New Pages

Please share the list of wiki project, want to check if I can fit for something. Also, I feel good to create pages, please share if there is a list of notable pending topics or someone needs my help for research. 1друг (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject § Finding a project and Wikipedia:Requested articles. Happy editing! Kleinpecan (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

What happens if I find two equally reliable sources that clash, saying different information?

I can’t find any Wikipedia information on this in the citing sources page (or I’m just wording it wrong) can anyone link me to a helpful page or just explain it please? (I’m sure this has been asked thousands of times) LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

See if you can find a third reliable source that verifies one statement. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 23:26, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, LongWinterBranches158, and welcome to the Teahouse. I would take these incidents on a case-by-case basis, and I'm not sure if there are guidelines for this, but my general steps for resolving this would be:

• 1) Check for a more authoritative source that may tip the balance in favor of one of the sources. For example, when I was editing an article about a 19th-century politician, sources called his wife "Betsy", "Bertha", and even "Martha", but US census data confirmed it was actually "Betsey".
• 2) Check what other similarly reliable sources have to say. If those largely outweigh one source, go with that.
• 2b) If this is a historical article and you're using historical sources, it may be best to leave an explanatory footnote to let readers know "Hey, there was some disagreement about this in reliable historical sources, but here's why X is actually true and not Y."
• 3) If one or both of the reliable sources are especially new such as very current news sources, I would wait to see if a correction is issued for either of them.
• 4a) If you can't find anything else and are completely torn on this, refrain from adding the statement to the article and instead post the information to the article's talk page for future readers who may eventually have access to better, newer information than when you were editing.
• 4b) Even if you aren't torn on this and do decide to include it in the article, it may still be helpful to leave your rationale on the talk page, especially if the consensus among reliable sources isn't overwhelming.

That's just what I would do, though, and a more experienced editor may have a better method. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Question about review status

Hi,

I have a question about review processes for drafts. I asked someone who works with me on the page to submit the draft, but I cannot find anywhere the proof of submission (it doesn't say anywhere that it's submitted for review). Where can I see if my page is in process of reviewing? I wouldn't want to submit it a second time, but I don't want to let it be if it hasn't been submitted.

Thank you, rbvp2000 Rbvp2000 (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Read what the declining reviewer said on your draft, Draft:USC_Philologos_Society. CanadianOtaku ^{Talk Page} 23:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

About Wikipedia (2)

How do I be a better Wikipedia editor Zahsj (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please don't ask the same question twice. Kleinpecan (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• Hello and welcome @Zahsj, your question isn’t one that has a fixed reply as different editors share different perspectives, but from experience, you become a better editor by first trying to understand fundamental policies and guidelines governing the project most of which are included in your welcome message, the one I just left for you here. You start by reading and trying to understand them, after which you proceed to practicing what you have read in your WP:SANDBOX(a space you are giving to practice your editing skills) then when you think you are ready, you proceed to editing a few articles on mainspace, usually by correcting typographical errors and optimizing the edit summary feature which basically requires you to summarize what exactly it was you edited or added to an article and when in doubt ask questions, just like you just did, naturally, overtime you become a decent editor. This is my answer to your question. Furthermore, I should also add that you are allowed to make mistakes and when confused, ask for help from other editors or as earlier stated, just ask a question here and an editor would attend to you. Celestina007 (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

AFD discussion

Let me have the AFD discussion of Akhilendra Sahu? Logical Puzzle (talk) 02:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhilendra Sahu - It's linked on the deletion log shown at that title as well. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI

 – Moved from below. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me know how to nominate an article for AFD discussion? Logical Puzzle (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Logical Puzzle: you can do it manually, but the easiest way is to download WP:TWINKLE and nominate an article by clicking the "TW" next to the edit button. Then fill out the form. versacespacetalk to me 03:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Does twinkle works in mobile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logical Puzzle (talk • contribs)

@Logical Puzzle: Apparently it does - see Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Archive 43#Twinkle on Mobile. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended confirmed users

Hello, my name is Duke Admiral. My account is over 30 days old, and I edit over 500 times on Wikipedia. But, I am not extended confirmed. What should I do to fix this and be extended confirmed users? Japan Railway (talk · contribs · count) 02:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Duke Admiral: It seems that WMFLabs lists you as extended confirmed. Perhaps there's another issue? versacespacetalk to me 02:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

User is in extendedconfirmed group: Special:UserRights/Duke_Admiral H78c67c (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, really? I didn’t know that!Thank you!Japan Railway (talk · contribs · count) 03:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing my settings

I am also needing a help about changing my settings. I can’t change my settings since I made a rename request. I want to fix this problem. Can you tell me how to fix this? Japan Railway (talk · contribs · count) 03:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@Japan Railway: elaborate please. versacespacetalk to me 03:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

You need to use your new username: User:Duke Admiral. The old username is no longer valid since the account was renamed. Similarly, your messages here should have been signed with your new username, not the old one. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Help with my article Before resubmitting

hello. I've been working on an article for a couple of weeks and I would like some help and advice to improve my article so it won't be rejected for a second time. The first time it was rejected was because it wasn't written in the formal/neutral tone. I then went and read all Wiki's articles about writing in neutral tone and believe I've fixed the issue. However, I really want to know if it's good to resubmit again and if I took all forms of bias out. Will someone please check my work?

Thanks, and have a good day. Draft:Savanna Karmue

Tracksthegeneral (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Tracksthegeneral Tracksthegeneral (talk) 05:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

where is the structure of the root hair cell?

 105.235.241.8 (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Please see Hair#Root_of_the_hair.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi IP 105.235.241.8. The Teahouse is generally for asking questions about Wikipedia or Wikipedia editing. If you're not able to find the information you're looking for in root hair cell, then perhaps try the Wikipedia:Reference desk. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit removed due to "vandalism"

Okay so, I tried to edit the Wikipedia article on Simon Beck, a Liechtenstein athlete who competed in the 1968 Olympic Winter Games in Grenoble. All I did was edit his date of birth due to it being inaccurate in the article (I know this because I'm his grandson), however someone removed the edit and warned me about removing my editing permissions if I continued to edit it, as it didn't seem to be constructive. Can someone please elaborate why that was the case? Arayyyyy (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Arayyyyy Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The edit was removed because it was not sourced to a published reliable source. For verification purposes, we cannot simply accept your word for it. If you have something published with the proper date on it, please provide it. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)