Wikipedia:Teahouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom



Research assistant[edit]

Hello, I am a research assistant at a university. Part of my employment is to write and post an article on wikipedia about research models in my field. However, I have found that paid writers are not allowed to post on wikipedia or they need to disclose payment? Did I understand that correctly? Or what am I missing? :) Thank you - LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi again LOWTeam2022. It sounds like your employer might be misunderstanding some very important things about Wikipedia. I've mentioned some of these above in my answer to your other question, but you might want to explain to your employer that Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be places for publishing academic or other types of research. Articles can contain information (when encyclopedically relevant) about already published and peer reveiwed reseach when it's considered to be a reliable source as explained here, but articles aren't intended to be a way of publishing or promoting one's research (i.e. means of first publication). As for paid-editing, it's not expressly prohibitted as long is it's properly declared as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, but be advised that many in the Wikipedia community are highly suspicious of even properly declared paid editing which may create issues between you and other Wikipedia editors. Paid-editing is a form of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and such editing is highly discouraged and considered inappropriate by many. Anyway both paid and COI editing can be done when done properly in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but you will have no real editorial control over such an article once it's created as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content and no special consideration will be granted to you just because you've been compensated for your work by a third-party. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is actually quite a messy area, and I suspect you are the tip of the iceberg. I am quite certain that many universities and research organisations have held wikithons and encouraged their employees to update Wikipedia's articles/write new articles about their areas of research. In general, it goes unnoticed because all concerned are blissfully unaware that they've strayed into paid and COI territory. Usually, the people who do the work are motivated by very similar aims to WP itself, and they're often good writers who respect the importance of sources, so the product is good, and no one notices. @Marchjuly has given good advice. You will face an up-hill struggle because editors here are deeply suspicious of COI. But the absolutely, totally, fundamentally most important thing is that your task is impossible unless the research models about which you wish to write are accepted models that have been used/written-about independently by other researchers. WP isn't the place to promote new, cutting-edge ideas (that's straying into original research), or generally to promote one institution. Thank you for raising the question. You were right to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this right to respond here...I sincerely appreciate your help in thinking through these details. I have been trying to process the information when I read it and glad to have this place to do so.
The research is not new; has been around for many years and proven with many case studies/examples. Also the research has already been published in peer reviewed journals and textbooks.
Does this help clarify? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Creating new articles in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines is quite a difficult thing to get used to for even experienced (i.e. professional) writers because the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might not be what they're accustomed to and in many cases might seem "wrong" or "counterintuitive". Even the wikicode used in creating and formatting articles can be tricky if you're used to something different. However, it's going to make no difference how beautifully written and formatted an article is if it's not able to WP:OVERCOME the hurdle of Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia notability (or the lack thereof) is pretty much the main reason why article's end up WP:DELETEd. If you're unable to establish whether the subject you want to write about is clearly "Wikipedia notable", then its chances of surviving a deletion challenge go way down. I've got no idea what you're going to try and create an article about, but perhaps a good thing to do would be to check whether there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject which might cover the subject matter. Perhaps the editors of such a project would be better able to assess whether what you want to write about should be written about or maybe whether it's already been written about. Many WikiProjects have members with backgrounds in research and academia and they might be able to help provide advice more specific to your particular situation. If it turns out that Wikipedia is not suited for what you're trying to do, there are many WP:ALTERNATIVEs that might better suit your needs that will give you more control and are less restrictive when it comes to things like shared accounts, paid editing, conflict of interest editing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
You have been coy so far as to the nature of the research area. Biomedical? Electronic? Energy? Economics? What does "research models" mean? Are there no existing articles for which the research at your university could be added to? Keep in mind that encyclopedias are trailing indicators of information. General advice here is to gain experience improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
And you can kill two birds with one stone in following David notMD's advice: if you can find some articles related to what you want to write about, improving them is a worthy action in itself, but will also help you find out about WP's style and formatting, and you might find an article whose structure you can use as a pattern for writing a new article. Although good sources are the vital starting-point, your article will have best chances of acceptance if it reads similarly to other, good articles in the same field (try to find good examples to follow; look on the talk-pages of the articles, where you will find a box at the top. In some articles, this box will say that the article is on an important subject, or has been rated. The best articles to use as patterns are those that are important enough to have been seen by a lot of editors - they're less likely to be misguided products that have slipped under the radar - and that are good enough to have been rated as good!). Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
You've piqued my curiosity, LOWTeam2022. Could you point us to a couple of articles that cover the topic? ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 07:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to seek more clarity before responding. Thanks for all of the support and interest. LOWTeam2022 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to expand a page that has been written about me[edit]

A page was written for me: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Donaldson I would like to add more information to my personal information:- I would like to add a recent photo, my 'Alma mater' and occupation. I wonder what 'Years active' means...? I'd like to add information to the main body of text. I am working on a laptop - VisualEditor (?) - not mobile view 86.177.135.104 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please first review the Autobiography policy. If you have suggestions for changes, please make them at Talk:Laura Donaldson in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). For uploading a photo(ideally one you took yourself/a relative took) see Files for upload. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello. You have a conflict of interest and should edit carefully. You should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and follow the advice there. I suggest that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors and use the formal edit request process at Talk: Laura Donaldson. As for a photo, if you are the copyright holder, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. It can then be added to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As the subject of the article, perhaps you also have access to clippings that document your career accomplishments? It would be especially helpful if you identify at Talk: Laura Donaldson any articles or other sources that covered your career in some depth. Such sources will help greatly in overcoming a contention that the article in its current state does not demonstrate that you qualify for a stand-alone article under Wikipdia's general notability guideline. Please don't take my suggestion as a "dig". Your accomplishment in qualifying for the Olympics is, of course, amazing, but Wikipedia's guidelines require us to show that you have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Miss. Laura Donaldson If articles about you written available on world wide web from news website, provide links to your article's WP:talk page someone will add about you in article.Success think (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

{{tb}} link added. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking something about Pandaily[edit]

Is Pandaily notable enough to write an article on Wikipedia? Enolajy (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Enolajy From Pandaily's own website: "Pandaily is a Beijing-based media company. Equipped with a deep understanding of China’s technology landscape and the unicorns that drive its innovation, our mission is to deliver premium content with contextual insights on Chinese technology, business, sports and culture to the worldwide community."
Looks to be a newsfeed accumulator. Wikipedia's guideline for corporations is at WP:NCORP. Essential to have several reliable-source references about Pandaily, or else don't bother to try, as would just be wasting your and Reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talkcontribs) 01:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
"From Pandaily's own....to the worldwide community" in the first paragraph is what I typed in my sandbox as practice. Is it be added by Wikipedia? Once, I tried to search "Pandaily" in the search bar and those content was presented to me.However, when I open a new page of Wikipedia, there was no search result. Does anyone know what happened? Need I delete the content and how can I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talkcontribs) 02:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Appears you succeeded in turning your Sandbox content into a draft, submitting that to AfC, and having it Declined. The Reviewer gave reasons. David notMD (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new section for an artice.[edit]

I've created a proposed new section for the film Born to Kill. I did it in my sandbox (first use of this tool) but I didn't submit it yet because it looks like that's really for full articles. What's the best way to get my proposal to the folks at WikiProjectFilm? I'm assuming a major addition like this from a new editor needs some kind of approval or consunsus. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. Your sandbox can be used to develop new content for existing articles, as well as new articles. So, there is nothing wrong with what you are trying to do in the abstract. The problem is that the new content that you have written is unreferenced to reliable sources, and that is not acceptable. So, your next step should be to add references before you move the content from your sandbox to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It may not be formatted as in an actual article, but there is a reference on that page, at the bottom. So I guess the question is, do I hit the "Submit your draft for review" button an just sit back and wait? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Pete Best Beatles Do not submit it for AFC review, it will simply be declined because an article about the subject already exists. AFC only deals with new articles. The article's talk page is the first choice venue for discussing your addition. You can also drop a note at the WikiProject to alert interested editors to your proposal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help with my first article[edit]

Hi all!

I recently published a draft and they gave it back to me, saying I didn't cite enough credible sources. Okay, I agree with that. But what about small companies that make a good and important product, that are written about by online subject sites, but are not written about by the Times and Guardian? And why do I see such companies' pages added to Wikipedia, but not mine?

If you can - please take a look at my draft and tell me what sources would work, so I know what direction to go in. Dmitrii Kolosov (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Getscreen.me. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmitrii Kolosov Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear that the company you want to write about simply won't ever generate the kind of attention that would result in detailed, in-depth articles being written about them, other than those within insider magazines. That's not to say that the products and services from those companies are not important. But there are millions upon millions upon millions of companies making good, important and often life-saving products which will never, ever meet the criteria of having had the world's attention drawn to them in a way that Wikipedia recognises as its Notabilty bar for inclusion. For businesses and corporations, a minimum of three detailed, in depth articles would be needed in mainstream publications of one sort or another, and I don't mean ones that you were then paid to write and then p[aid to use on Wikipedia as simple WP:PROMOTION. See WP:NCORP for a further explanation. I'm really sorry about this; I hope no money has changed hands. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Hi, Nick! Thanks for your answer. I work for this company, so no money was given to me. Almost all of our competitors are in Wikipedia and it is very strange to hear that this kind of software will never get into it. We have over 50,000 customers all over the world. Apparently, we just have to wait until they write an article in some Washington Post)Dmitrii Kolosov(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmitrii Kolosov Anyone employed any company is 100% being paid to write for Wikipedia - even if they do it in their spare bedroom at home in the evening. But I see you have already declared your own paid connection - so thank you. Unfortunately, in a way you are correct - yes, it requires major press or publisher interest being shown in a company to meet WP:NCORP. Because Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, you are welcome to tell us which other companies also fail to meet that standard. We are constantly clearing out articles that were put here for just that purpose, yet aren't really notable as such -especially since our criteria on organisations has been tightened up. See WP:AFD for information on that process. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

These articles are according WP policies ?[edit]

Rashmi Thackeray and a related women page to her, are these to sub are notable to have a WP page about them. These pages also not looks like a WP articles normally looks, the articles are looking like their personal website, where there political party supporters. Success think (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Success think, could you articulate your concerns about the article more clearly? It looks like the sources establish notability to me. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Success think: Is Rashmi Thackeray's notability derived from being a spouse, or from being an editor? What has she done in her career? All good things you can bring up at the article's talk page, Talk:Rashmi Thackeray. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
This little weirdness was in the intro: "currently serving as the spouse of the Chief minister of Maharashtra to Uddhav Thackeray. " Checking around, I think that the author was actually trying to say that "she is the spouse of the Chief minister of Maharashtra, Uddhav Thackeray" and have so edited the lead. The rest of the article should be looked over to see if this same lack of English proficiency is evident in the rest of it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

ACORD Edit Request Review[edit]

Hi Teahouse! As suggested by User:Spencer, reaching out here to see if another editor would be willing to look over the most recent edit request on ACORD. One of the company's products recently won an award, and would like to see if it could get added to the page. Thanks! Morrissey35 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Teahouse talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks User:Blaze Wolf! Any other editors available to review this? Much appreciated! Morrissey35 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Morrissey35: I have not actually checked it out. I simply moved this from the teahouse talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Using an old logo in addition to the latest one[edit]

Hi! I was editing the page of a football club. It already has a logo added to its infobox under what I believe is fair use. But the club adopted that logo only in 2016, and I found the logo it used for several years before that. If I wanted to add the old logo to the article (not in infobox), will be I able to do it under fair use? Toofllab (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Toofllab. Item 8 of the non-free content criteria says: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. If you think your proposal will meet that criteron (and you are prepared to argue the case if another editor disagrees) then go ahead and include it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, item 3a may be more relevant: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The current logo has only been in place since 2016, while the older logo had been used since at least the 2000's, if not the 1990's (the cub was formed in 1996). Do you think its a valid reason? Toofllab (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Toofllab, I am puzzled that your external link goes to an imageless YouTube video of a Kanye West song recording. How is this relevant?
To answer the logo question, I would say that if each logo contain elements relevant to details of the club's circumstances and/or history and the two are significantly different, then both could be used provided that the article text actually explains these details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Inquiries about reference writing and writing.[edit]

Draft:Hanwha Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hanwha_Defense 

This draft has no references. Notability cannot be established without references. Do not resubmit this draft without references. You can ask for advice about references at the Teahouse. This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject. Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability. You may ask for advice about corporate notability at the Teahouse. This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over. If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor. You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Please teach me the way. Duck3820 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What you copy/pasted above represents the comments the reviewer who Rejected the draft made to explain why the draft was Rejected, which is more severe than Declined. Foremost, you provided no references. DO NOT resubmit the draft as it is now. Delete all content, i.e., 'blown up'. If you insist on trying again, find published content about the company written by people who have no connection to the company. Those are the essential references. All content you write must be from information in those sources. If no such sources exist, give up. If you create a new draft, post a note on the Talk page of the editor who rejected it, asking if the new version has potential to become an article. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Duck3820 See WP:REFBEGIN to learn how to add references, and WP:INTRODUCTION to learn other important editing basics. Are you being paid to write this promotional draft? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Help With Article Neutrality[edit]

Hi all! Just writing because I need some help from someone with more experience editing for neutrality on this page: Calvin Ball


I tried to resolve some of the issues, but as other editors noted there seem to be quite a few problems with this page. Urge any editors with more experience to take a look or pass on any tips :) Ml0695a (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ml0695a! I see you added a controversies section here. I would discourage that, per WP:CRITSECTION; just integrate it into the text elsewhere instead.
Another issue is sourcing. Your first source to The Baltimore Sun looks alright to me, but the other two have issues. HoCo Watchdog does not appear to be a reliable source, because its about page doesn't detail any sort of editorial process. The second Baltimore Sun article is an opinion piece, which does not work for a citation per WP:RSOPINION. Please find better sources for both of these. If no better sources exist, then the information is not due for the article. Speaking more broadly, we shouldn't give much focus to individual incidents unless they had a lasting impact on the person's career, since as an encyclopedia, we want to take a long-term view, rather than the more newsy focus of a newspaper. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Ml0695a that this article is overly filled with modest accomplishment by Ball, many representing an elected official's routine work, many not referenced. I cut 20%, but still needs an axe. Even then, there is the question of whether an article of a person at the county level is warranted. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View vs. A Unique Native Perspective[edit]

Hello! I have had this question bouncing around my head for a while, troubling me with analysis paralysis. Today a professor pulled me out of it by suggesting I just ask you all.

There is a page for a Guarani chieftain named Lambaré who, in the 16th century, fought against the Spanish conquest of Paraguay. The page exists only in Guarani. I came upon it because I am from Paraguay, and interested in Native histories. I have many times noted that the language that an article is in determines the information presented therein, and upon realizing that there was a Guarani Wikipedia I wanted to seek articles in that language out—specifically those that would be inaccessible from Spanish/French/English Wikipedias. I found a few, and started a project with someone else to translate them. However, with COVID and Life Circumstances, things fell through. Nonetheless, we did manage to translate one article, which I wanted to put on the English site and make accessible to others.
However, and here comes the problem, the article is not written in a "neutral point of view," as per this page. The point will be easier to illustrate with an excerpt; these are the first lines:

  • Guarani: Che niko aikuaase ko’ág̃aite peve, mba’érepa ko’ã cacique ha ambue omanóva’ekue ñane retã rayhupápe ndojehecharamói avei chupekuéra pe 1º jasyapýpe, Mariscal-kuéra apytépe, pysyrõhára apytépe, mba’érepa herakuéra ndojehechái oñeñe’ẽvo Paraguái rembiasáre, umi ohaíva’ekue piko añetehápe Paraguay ra’ytee téiko pytagua? Ápe peteĩ mandu’aimi hesegua ajuhúva.
  • English: I want to know this instant: why do we not also see these chiefs, and others who died for their love of our homeland, among the marshals and defenders on the First of March? Why do we not see their names mentioned in the history of Paraguay? Were those that wrote it so little Paraguayan that they were foreigners?


I think it's pretty clear that this is not neutral, and within Wikipedia's styleguide. However, I must stress that this is unique. This, and probably other articles on Guarani Wikipedia and other lesser-known languages, have such biases. But their value is in the perspective they provide, the autochtonous record of events we usually only have access to from the colonizer's perspective.
I've been hesitant to bring this issue up for so long because my deepest fear is that the Guarani page, which is beautiful and has worth in its own rights, will be taken down—be made inaccessible to the public—and something great will be lost. I was concerned that translating it into English would highlight this deficiency and lead it to the deleted, but that was leading me to not do anything with the translation. Instead of doing that, and not having room to explain anything, I think it is/was best that I post here and lay out my thoughts.
What should I do with my English translation is one question. Another is: what should be done about the Guarani article? I hope that the answer is nothing for the latter... My question really is about whether or not I can post an article from a 1st person singular/2nd person plural perspective on English Wikipedia. However, the underlying question is whether such articles are even allowed on Wikipedia period, regardless of language.
This is my first post here, so my apologies if this is not the proper place to post this or to go about it. Please help me if you can! Is there some authority who can make an ad hoc ruling, or is this adressed in a FAQ, or in a guideline/styleguide?
Thank you
 I. Riva (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I. Riva. Let me begin by saying that I know nothing about the Guarani Wikipedia but do know a little about how Wikipedia versions in various languages are governed. In brief, each language version is autonomous, as long as they are aligned with the general principles of the Wikimedia movement. Each project establishes its own notability standards and other standards for articles. Guarani is a language with a few million native speakers but only a few thousand Wikipedia articles. You should not assume that a Guarani Wikipedia article is also notable on the English Wikipedia, because of the variations in notability standards. And, if translated into English, the new English language article is expected to comply with the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. So, to create a successful "translation ", or more correctly an English language article based in part on the Guarani original, then you must substantially rewrite the article to bring it into compliance with English language Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I. Riva, the bias in what's presented caused by the language (and ethnicity) of the author obviously exists, and it can be difficult to decide what reference-point is neutral. What I consider neutral might be very different to what a Paraguayan would consider neutral, because I'm standing in a different place, looking with different eyes. The thing about Wikipedia is that we can address such differences, and can talk about it, but we must do so with someone else's voice, not our own. You can use the points of view expressed in the Guarani page, but must find some reliable secondary source where those points of view have been spoken (in any language); I hope that their author, or others with the same viewpoint, will have written those thoughts elsewhere than Wikipedia pages. If someone stood up and complained that the history has been written by the colonists, you can and should include that in your article, properly referenced. We just have to balance all mainstream points of view. So Cullen328 is right: it might take a lot of work to re-write the Guarani article to meet English WP standards, but it's about finding referencing, and balancing all viewpoints, not about necessarily the Guarani article being "wrong". But I think you know that. We cannot right wrongs, but we can report others who've righted wrongs in good secondary sources. Yes, the Guarani viewpoint is unique rather than neutral, but unique viewpoints can (should!) still be in English WP provided they're presented as part of the whole story (and surely the native perspective is a big part of the story), and provided they're properly supported by referencing. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@I. Riva, thanks for your note here! To answer your direct question, first, yes, we absolutely want to have an article on Lambaré in English. Latin American topics are an area where we're significantly lacking coverage due to Wikipedia's systemic bias, and remedying that is extremely valuable. However, as others have discussed above, neutrality is a core pillar of English Wikipedia, so just a direct translation of the Guarani page wouldn't be acceptable here (although it could certainly be a good starting point).
Another important thing is sourcing. It looks like there's one or two sources at the bottom of the bottom of the Guarani page—it'd be helpful if you could translate those for us, but we'll probably need more. I did a search to see what I could find in English, and I came up with a few finds:[1][2] There seem to be some others on Google Books, and you're also welcome to use non-English sources. I'd suggest pasting your translation at Draft:Lambaré (chieftain) and working on it there, adding high-quality sources to support the material, and then submitting it when it's ready. I'm happy to help; I've watchlisted that page and you can post on my talk page anytime to summon me.
Lastly, zooming out a bit, here's another way to frame neutrality. While personal, non-neutral texts can be valuable cultural documents, ultimately they're not encyclopedic, so they don't fit with our purpose here in the same way as neutral accounts do. One of the beautiful things about English Wikipedia is that, because we have contributors from all over the world, it's easier to counter cultural biases from any one place. For instance, when we were looking to close a discussion on whether Fox News can be used as a reliable source, we sought out non-American editors to assess the consensus. Wikipedias in languages predominantly spoken in a single country often have a harder time doing this. That phenomenon has been covered in this article on Japanese Wikipedia and this one on Croatian Wikipedia. Granted, the global prevalence of English certainly has its own colonial history, but that's getting into a separate discussion. Anyways, I hope you'll move forward with writing the article on Lambaré, and please let us know if there's anything we can do to help with that. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kenneth, Huner, Michael (December 2011). Sacred cause, divine republic: a history of nationhood, religion, and war in nineteenth-century Paraguay, 1850-1870 (Thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. pp. 233–236. doi:10.17615/m5k7-kf91.
  2. ^ Austin, Shawn Michael (2020). Colonial kinship: Guaraní, Spaniards, and Africans in Paraguay. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. pp. 27–28. ISBN 9780826361974.

Help please[edit]

Can anyone help me here: Draft:Sanjib Baruah Arunudoy (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arunudoy, we cannot help you jump the queue of submitted drafts. Please be patient and it will be reviewed in due time. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Arunudoy. The draft was declined yesterday (before you posted here) by Scope creep, who left a comment explaining the decline. You are of course entitled to ask any editors for their opinion on notability, but to do so without mentioning that a reviewer has already told you the references are inadequate looks like gaming the system. Please engage with Scope creep rather than ignoring them and appealing to somebody else.

How to create a Public, Professional profile in Wikipedia[edit]

 68.186.52.179 (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please read Wikipedia:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Wikipedia does not have profiles. Not a single one. Instead, it consists of neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia articles. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for an explanation of why you effort is almost certainly a bad idea. Your first article offers some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library[edit]

I have received a message saying that "Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library." in my notices, what is this "Wikipedia Library" and this message seems suspicious for some reason, I haven't clicked on anything (like the notice/message has said) so can anyone tell me more about whatever this is, and should I trust it?

Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello RandomEditorAAA. The Wikipedia Library is a research group for experienced editors. See WP:WIKILIB and this for more information. Thank You! Kpddg (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@RandomEditorAAA, I see how it might have the "too good to be true" ring to it, but lucky for us, it's very real and an incredibly useful resource. I encourage you to sign up! (Also, courtesy ping @Samwalton9 (WMF), just for your consideration when deciding on text to use in the notification message.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library "totally not sus, you can deffo trust us"? Nosebagbear (talk)
Be Happy! I am desperately looking forward to this, because it's extremely hard to use newspaper sources behind pay-walls, and it's very frustrating for those of us who are serious-but-new editors that we don't have eligibility to get to this enormous amount of material that ought to be used in citations, without paying through the nose to do so, when we're not paid to do what we do. I don't mind working on Wikipedia for free (it's worth it) but I can't afford to spend cash on it! Elemimele (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elemimele Not all resources are immediately accessible there. I am still waiting for my request for access to Cambridge University Press to be fulfilled. I’m desperate to read one paper that I need access to for my new article about the 19th century high-altitude scientist, Joseph Vallot. I believe there are limited tickets available for Wikipedia, so it’s simply a case of waiting my turn. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Can you not make a request at WP:REX for the paper? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I possibly could, but I've got a long way with my article already, so there's no rush, even though I'm keen to see it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. Just wanted to make sure you knew that was an option. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I've got independent access to the Cambridge Core collection which includes CUP, so I should be able to reach the article you want if you give some details here or (better) on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your response, I will try to sign up today! Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Side question, I am reading the terms and conditions and I have 2 questions.
  1. Regarding personal data, it says "we will retain the application data we collect from you for three years after your most recent login" (in the Data Retention and Handling section) and that I will be able to see it through my profile, this information will only be kept between Wikimedia and me right? Or will other people see it?
  2. Secondly, it says in the Applying via Your Wikipedia Library Card Account section, that "approved Wikipedia Library Coordinators" will be able to see my information, but later on they are described as "approved volunteer Coordinators", what is this approval process and how am I ensured that someone didn't apply for a coordinator position just to steal personal information, or use it in someway for a personal advantage?

Sorry for asking another question, Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA, I pinged Sam Walton, who manages the Wikipedia Libary, above; when he sees this, he may be able to speak to those questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for helping! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Oddly, I received the same message saying I was "now eligible" for the WL recently. Yet I've had an account there for some time! For anyone who is interested, the eligibility criteria are that your account has 500+ edits; 6+ months editing; 10+ edits in the last month and No active blocks. So most if not all serious contributors here will be eligible and I encourage you to sign up at this link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: I did as well after reverting vandalism, although I'm fairly sure I'm already signed up for it. Wonder if they just recently enabled that notification or if there was a bug that caused it to get sent out again to all eligible users. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Amagarh Fort[edit]

help me. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Karsan Chanda You have written (and had Declined at AfC) an eleven-word draft (Draft:Amagarh Fort) with nine references. It is on you to add content to the draft. Teahouse hosts are charged with answering questions about how to edit and create articles, not be co-authors David notMD (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karsan Chanda What interesting facts about Amagarh Fort do those sources tell you? Can you share them with us? All you've done so far is tell us its name and where it is, but nothing about its history, who constructed it and why, who regards it as their property, if anyone has fought over it, whether it is a ruin or a functional structure, open to the public, or a religious monument, or a police station. Imagine you're a school child who was tasked with finding stuff out about it and asked to write a brief essay about it - would your draft be enough? I think not.
Your job (assuming you want to create this article) is to extract relevant factual information from your sources. Please don't copy-paste them directly, but summarise and rewrite them in your own words and support every statement with an 'inline citation'. There's help at WP:REFBEGIN on how to do that. The end product is a short, encyclopaedic article that is written in a neutral tone of voice which others will find relevant and non-promotional, and where they can go back to your sources and verify what the article says is true. Don't rely on blogs or private websites - only work from Reliable Sources. More advice available Here. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with draft[edit]

Please help me for Draft:Nitin_Pujari, What's wrong in this article? Ntndude (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ntndude, the draft shows that he's a priest in a temple. Is there any reason to think that he's notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article? Maproom (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Maproom,Nitin Pujari is a spiritual leader as well as a temple priest and is a participant in many social work, people like him very much and he has contributed a lot in setting up this religious institution.

if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntndude (talkcontribs)

Creating Wikipedia Page about someone significant[edit]

Hi there, Our company would like to create a Wikipedia page about our current CEO who is a reasonably well-known figure in the entertainment industry within South Africa. He is an actor, film and theatre director and producer who has worked on numerous local and international projects over the last 10 years and is also the Founder and CEO of an International Performing Arts Academy in South Africa - which is a top performing arts school within South Africa (one of the 4 best in the country) and he is still very young - regardless of these amazing accomplishments.

We'd like to get him listed on Wikipedia as we feel that he has a great reputation and creditable career to be listed - plus this could benefit him, as well as our company, tremendously if approved and granted.

We don't know how this works, how to create a page, or request for it to be created. Assistance but mostly advice will be highly appreciated.

Regards 31.124.109.203 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there and welcome to the Teahouse, it looks like you have a conflict of interest with the article you are thinking about making. It is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia to create an article that one might have a conflict of interest with, because it might lead the article away from having a neutral point of view. If you are, however, to make this article you must first see that is passes the general notability guideline and if it does not sadly an article should not be written about your boss. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
See also WP:PAID. Since you're employed by his company, it's highly likely you'll have to make a declaration that you are doing paid editing. Under some circumstances it's just about possible to argue that you're paid to do something completely different, that your CEO is unaware that you're writing an article about him, would not expect you to, that the company's publicity is none of your business, and that your actions won't influence your status in the company or carry any possibility of reward or censure, but this is very rare indeed. Even if you're an intern, and not actually paid, it counts. If you have any role in promoting the company, it absolutely definitely counts. So it's much the best to declare this up front properly, rather than get caught doing "unpaid editing" later, which will almost certainly result in all your work being deleted. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Advice here, then, is to create an account for yourself (all accounts represent individuals), state on your User page that you are an employee of ____ who is drafting an article about ____, and then use WP:YFA to create a referenced draft. Review guidelines for articles about corporations at WP:NCORP. When you are ready, the draft gets submitted to a formal review process. All facts must be supported by independent references. Understand that Wikipedia has articles, not pages, and that it you are successful in creating an article, there is no ownership - anyone can edit it as long as they include valid references. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll put it a little more strongly. If at some time Wikiedia has an article about your CEO (whether you write it or not), the article will not belong to him or to you, neither you nor he will have control over its contents (though you will be welcome suggest edits to it), it could end up containing material he does not like (as long as this is based on reliable published sources), and indeed, close to 100% of the article should be based on reliable published sources wholly unconnected with your CEO, not on what he says or wants to say. See WP:OWN and WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"plus this could benefit him, as well as our company, tremendously if approved and granted." is exactly what Wikipedia is not. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How to add a usage to an existing disambiguation page, without creating a new article?[edit]

I am trying to understand how WP:REDDEAL and MOS:DABRED interact (and am sufficiently confused that I just spent an hour two? + hours composing the following, on an iPad, in raw wikitext, because I clearly hate sleep 😉).

Background example:

  1. There is an existing disambiguation page for a term.
  2. A user lands upon this disambiguation page during a search, or by linking to the term in another article (not describing the term, just referencing it) and finding that the wikilink did not lead to what they intended.

    e.g.

    “A live broadcast of the Queen’s 75th birthday celebration was available to all citizens to view on their Skylink receivers.”

  3. No existing entry on that disambiguation page matches the topic the user was trying to find (or the topic implied by the context of the wikilink that led them there.


Possible scenarios:

  1. An article exists already for the desired topic
    1. Add a wikilink pointing to the topic’s article (and a short description) to the disambiguation page

      * Skylink (TV platform), the Czech–Slovak satellite platform

  2. An article for the desired topic does not exist yet, but the topic is described within another article page
    1. Add the topic name, without a red wikilink, to the disambiguation page, and wikilink to the other article in the short description:

      * Skylink (TV platform), the Czech–Slovak satellite platform operated by M7 Group

  3. An article does not exist yet, it plausibly could (within notability standards), the user does not have the knowledge to create a standalone article (which could be one reason why they were searching for it in the first place), and the topic isn’t described within the body of any known article:
    1. Add a wikilink, even though it will be red, to aid visibility and to encourage article creation by others in the future:

      * Skylink (TV platform), the Czech–Slovak satellite platform

    2. Do not do #1, but if that red wikilink is already there, leave it alone for the reasons listed in #1


Questions:

  1. Does anything above seem incorrect?
  2. In the case of scenario C, if C.1. is not correct, what should be done?
    1. Perhaps my eyes are just glazed over by now, but it seems that the combination of WP:REDDEAL and MOS:DABRED imply that C.1. is both okay and not okay.
      1. From a data consistency perspective, not okay makes sense (sort of; more so if WP were a print encyclopedia).
      2. From user and reader friendliness perspective, okay seems to make more sense.
    2. i.e. If the Skylink (TV platform) article didn’t already exist (but it could, since it does right now) could someone add that term to the disambiguation page without creating an article or researching citations?
  3. If the answer to the previous question is “nothing”/“no”, how can this user (who may not even have a Wikipedia account, or may have knowledge that a topic appears to be missing but only has, say, 15 minutes to volunteer) share their knowledge to improve that page?
    1. (Perhaps they could notate the disambiguation page’s ‘talk’ page, but that doesn’t seem very visible.)
  4. Is there a scenario where a topic might not be notable enough for its own article (or even as part of another article), yet still be mentioned on an existing disambiguation page?


Thanks for reading - any thoughts are appreciated!
 Jim Grisham (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Grisham, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate among Wikipedia articles, not among subjects. So I disagree with C. I would not add a redlink to a dab page. When I notice such a link, I check if there's a page it could reasonably link to: then either link it to such a page, or delete it. If you believe that a subject is notable, but you don't feel up to creating an article yourself, you could mention it in the dab page's talk page, listing enough sources to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Jim Grisham:, I agree with C as well, but would also suggest that you read disambiguation for any questions you might have for a disambiguation page. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
That’s partially why I’m confused. Did I misread the references above (disambiguation style manual and redlink guidance)?
  • C.1. and C.2. came from there.

I think they are individually correct per those references; but, logically they both can’t always be.
  • My main question is: did I just interpret those incorrectly, or is there a conflict here?
- - - -
From a user perspective, they search for something, and end up on a disambiguation page.
  • They see a list of things, and something significant with the same name isn’t listed.
  • I get that wasn’t the original intended purpose, but what else have we got? (and this case doesn’t involve creating a new disambiguation page, but simply adding an item to such a page that already exists, and as noted at WP:PRIMARYRED, but then later limited by MOS:DABMENTION

If the missing ‘thing’, (and I’m using ‘thing’ instead of ‘article’ here, because at this point they don’t know if an article exists or not), is related to the others in other ways than just nomenclature, then it can be listed in a ’set index article’ (tangentially the subject of the section at the top of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) right now) with a red link - there appears to be no conflict in guidance there.
- - - -
More generalized scenario:

So, you have two people. Separated by time and space.

A. Person one knows a thing exists, and learns that Wikipedia doesn’t, but she doesn’t know anything encyclopedic about it.
  • Perhaps she has no time / resources to learn more, but willing to share that small thing, the knowledge of the thing’s existence. The speck of dust at the center of a majestic snowflake waiting to be born.

B. Person two knows all about a thing; they might assume nearly everyone else does as well.
  • If person one left a breadcrumb in the past that indicated Wikipedia doesn’t actually know about this thing, perhaps person two discovers this accidentally.
    • Person two could then write a detailed, well-referenced, high quality article about the thing.
    • Without action by person one, person two may never have known of the need.

That type of scenario would require C.1. to take priority over C.2., right?

What is the likelihood that someone, who is not a Wikipedia editor, just happens to stumble upon a Disambiguation:Talk page. (Totally serious question - seems wild to me, but that’s why I’m reaching out for advice.)

If the consensus is instead that C.2. takes priority over C.1., it seems the lowest-friction path for person one would be to instead:
1. add a reference for the ‘thing’ in another article (e.g. M7 Group in B.1.) and then
2. Add to the disambiguation page a mention of the ‘thing’ (bold; not wikilinked) followed by a short description and a blue link to that other article.
As an added benefit, this would bring greater exposure for the need for additional content, as anyone reading that other article would now know that this ‘thing’ existed. Eh?
- - - -
  • Disambiguation . . . . . . . . . . : 24 pages
  • Manual of Style: Disambiguation . : 23 pages
  • WikiProject Disambiguation . . . . : 29 pages
  • Red Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 6 pages
  • --
  • 82 pages
  • vs. the page I just found, 6 hours later
  • Disambiguation dos and don’ts . . : 2 pages

One of the stated goals of the Foundation is for everyone to “freely share in the sum of all human knowledge”… perhaps for now this has to go to another project, such as WikiData?

Apologies if I got a bit Ranty McRantface there -

Thank you for your replies - your time and service are appreciated! Jim Grisham (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Complaining about a vandalizing Wikipedia editor[edit]

Hello Teahouse! I'm complaining about a malicious vandal who vagabonds around as a Wikipedia editor under the user name ElderZamzam, and his main cust is the following: He changes in the Wiki articles of all Iranians or persons of Iranian origin the name of their country of birth (Iran) from "Iran" to "Imperial state of Iran". But there is no such state, i.e. Imperial State of Iran, on Earth. Whoever dares to undo the wrong and illegitimate intervention of the vandal, his article will be blocked. These are intolerable conditions and unworthy of Wikipedia. What to do? Hil-ciccio (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Hil-ciccio (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hil-ciccio: Hello Hil! I took a look at his contributions and he does not appear to be doing what you described. Did you perhaps confuse him with another user? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it appears they are doing a little of that (They even know they're being a vandal by saying WP:SNEAKY in their edit summary]], however that doesn't appear to be all of their edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"Imperial State of Iran" was the name of the country from 1935 to 1979, see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/country-names/country-name-changes-in-hmg-use-1919-to-2020. Please don't use the term vandalism to refer to good-faith edits. See WP:vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Hil-ciccio (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC) @Balze Wolf, have a quick look, for example, at the article Mahmoud Khayami. Hil-ciccio (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hil-ciccio: Wikipedia uses the titles which were relevant at the appropriate time, see the last paragraph (about anachronisms) in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Geographical items. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about my User page[edit]

Hi, I'm new and I don't understand if my User page exists or not, and if it exists in English, does it also automatically exist in Italian (it doesn't seem so)?

Thanks to anyone who will help me to better understand how the registration works :)

Kind regards, Suzanna MSuzanna (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@MSuzanna: Hello welcome to the Teahouse, the answer to you question is no. If you have a user page on the English Wiki you will not also have one in the Italian or any other Wiki. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSuzanna: If you create a user page at meta:Special:MyPage, it will be used in any language Wikipedia where you don't have a specific user page, see meta:Global user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSuzanna: Back in December you changed your user page so that it redirects to your User talk page. If you wish to edit your user page, go to your user page User:MSuzanna then click near the top where it says "Redirected from User:MSuzanna".--Shantavira|feed me 13:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Time (Five album) Draft[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Time (Five album)

I'd found someone created and submitted this page, but it got rejected twice so I've added more to it and another source or two. What exactly is wrong with it to begin with? Could someone look at this and perhaps submit it if it's ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:9CBA:EE97:36E9:B748 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason it got declined is because the articles sources were not reliable therefore not passing the nobility guideline for music. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well how about now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:9CBA:EE97:36E9:B748 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The groups previous albums are all subjects of articles, which is a good sign. Given that Time was just released in January 2022, perhaps wait a bit before resubmitting. What music critics write about it could become references. By the way, it was Declined, not Rejected, which is more severe. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Also according to WP:RSP The Sun UK is a depreciated sources, the apple inc reference is not reliable, and I am unsure about the reliablity of Retro Pop Magazine. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as like David notMD said it was just released in January. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How About now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:7966:9556:C7BE:69AD (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Can someone either approve or decline so it can be resubmitted at a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:7966:9556:C7BE:69AD (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

translating pages about czech artists[edit]

Hello I would like to create an english version of this page https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristina_Weiserov%C3%A1 , what should I do. I would like to translate multiple czech artist pages into english in near future. AnnaMarieDvorakova (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello AnnaMarieDvorakova, see Wikipedia:Translation#Translation from a foreign language to English. --The Tips of Apmh 15:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@AnnaMarieDvorakova I think you will not be able simply to translate that page and assume it will be acceptable here. I don't speak Czech, but all I can see is a huge uncited biography and two references linking to YouTube. Whilst she may well meet our Notability Requirements, you will need to ensure that every statement of fact is supported by an inline citation. See WP:REFBEGIN or WP:ERB to understand how to do that. I do see there are some external links, and i would suggest these would need to be assess to see if they are Reliable Sources or not. If they are, you should base everything on what those sources say. Do not simply translate from Czech to English and expect it to be accepted here.
I say this not to put you off, but to appraise you of the importance of doing your own research and in finding and using those sources, and nothing else. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearing sandbox after publishing article[edit]

When I have published an article I am left with a notice in my sandbox: " This is a redirect from a page move." From what I have read elsewhere I believe that I can just delete this to clear my sandbox to start on my next piece, but for the life of me I can't work out how to. Can you please give me some basic instructions? I know I am missing something! Thanks. Frb12 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Frb12: Hello Frb12! There are 2 ways to do so, one is to add to your URL for your sandbox &redirect=no after the part of the url that says sandbox (So it would turn out as ...User:Frb12/sandbox&redirect=no. An easier way would be to go to your sandbox, let it redirect you, and when it takes you to the new page, there'll be a small bit of text that says "(Redirect from User:Frb12/sandbox)". You just click on your link to the sandbox and it'll take you back to the sandbox without redirecting you. Then you can simply just edit source and blank the page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf wow, I've always deleted items from my sandbox by clicking on Edit, highlighting everything, and hitting my computer's Delete key. I work on new articles offline, and then move them to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Ready for submission, so it might make a difference if I only use my sandbox to see if I've formatted a citation or an information box properly. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this articles sufficient to be in mainspace?[edit]

Is this Draft: Pradeep Narwal sufficient to be accepted as Article? As I can see this draft have 227 views in 17 days but no one accepted yet. Confused! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, just because it has 227 views does not mean they are all reviewers looking at the article, but from what I can tell the article looks good as well as the sources (I don’t know about the one in the other language though). ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Kaleeb18 Thank you. The other language which don't know is Hindi language. The Hindi news source is from News18 which mostly considered as reliable. If everything is fine. Hope someone will accept this soon. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheChunky No problem, there is just a big backlog right now as there are currently over 2900 articles also waiting for review. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello TheChunky and welcome to the Teahouse, there is nothing unusual here, articles submitted at AFC can be in waiting for up to 90 days, the reason being, “AFC” isn’t a queue, rather, think of it like a “pool” there isn’t a specific order in which articles are reviewed. Do have a little patience and in due time your article would be reviewed. Sorry for the inconvenience, keep in mind that editors working at AFC as with any other aspects of this project are volunteers who edit as a hobby or a means to contribute to knowledge, so like I said exhibit little patience, if after three months the article is left unreviewed do let us know, and I would personally take care of the reviewing for you. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Addendum; i saw this comment made by you; “Hope someone will accept this soon” if I may ask, Is there a particular reason you want this reviewed quickly? A valid rationale might make me review if for you within the hour if the reason is a very cogent one. Celestina007 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Celestina007 Thanks for the elaboration. Regarding my comment, I hope someone will accept it soon. I said this because I saw there were almost 200+ views on this very draft and none of them reviewed it. I don't have any urgency, like I am not forcing someone to accept. But I was just asking whether it could be accepted or not. If not, then what changes do I have to make to it? That is just for gaining experience. As you mentioned, AfC is run entirely by volunteers, so no one can be forced to attend. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and the above-mentioned draft, which I created solely to gain experience in biographical wikis, which are of particular interest to me. But besides this, I usually write articles about places mostly.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
Celestina007 as I can see you have lot of experience, I hope you can teach me too where I don't know the things. Hope you will be my mentor. Can you adopt me? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
TheChunky, not all editors who viewed the draft article might have the technical ability to accept it (or decline). Furthermore, I would suggest experimenting is best done in your sandbox, BLP's or biographies(living or dead) in general are very delicate, to be honest I don’t think experimenting with article creations is a good idea. Unfortunately I am unable to adopt anyone due to the fact that I edit in very tasking aspects of Wikipedia that require pedantic concentration, there are however other editors who are willing to adopt editors, see them here. My talkpage is however always open if you have specific questions to ask me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Focusing on # of article views is a waste of time. We generally don't care about that for articles unless there's direct consequences for the article as a result (in the form of an influx of new editors or vandals). I'll remind you that Wikipedia uses NOFOLLOW for all outgoing links. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Celestina007 and Jéské Couriano for your suggestions. I will practise my new articles in the sandbox. Regarding the view count, I know it is not compulsory that only users having the technical ability to accept articles have seen it. But I wanted to see if anybody had left a message there so that I could learn more. Currently, I am focusing on Indian politics-related articles because the elections in India are going to start next month. And the Wikipedia readers would be researching the parties and candidates' history and background. This Draft:Pradeep Narwal is my first article on political biography and I have created it by considering Wikipedia:NPOL. I was here to get suggestions only. Well, I will ask here again if I need any help with any article. Thanks again for the guidance.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect creation[edit]

Can someone create a redirect of Guddu Pandit to Bhagwan Sharma? Sources: [1][2] 122.170.166.214 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse, I suggest you to visit Wikipedia:Redirect. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You can learn there how to redirect. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
IPs are not able to create article or redirect. 122.170.166.214 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I would do it for you however I don't know if those sources are reliable or not (They aren't listed at WP:RSP which helps me in determining a source's reliability). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list and unless we have some reason to believe they are not reliable it's ok to go through with items like this. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mcmatter: Alright that's good to know. I usually don't like doing stuff that would require sourcing unless I know for sure the sources are reliable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! 122.170.166.214 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Mcmatter Can you also create an Indian sword for me and redirect it to Indian martial arts? I want to create an article there just like there is Korean sword and Japanese sword. 122.170.166.214 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
For that I would recommend using the WP:AFC process.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Mcmatter I created Draft:Indian sword. Can you approve it? 122.170.166.214 (talk) 07:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia page declined[edit]

hey! i got told here to see why my article got declined Wintercake93 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason why your draft was declined is given in the pink box on Draft:Poor Mans Poison. You deleted it despite the note saying "Do not remove this line!" but I have reinstated it. The words in blue are wikilinks to specific guidance. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Wintercake93: Please note that the message on your talk page states: "If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk." It then goes on to state "If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse". GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources / Citations ref first hand account and participation[edit]

I was an actual participant in an historical event listed in wikipedia. I want to edit the article but am not sure how to actually provide citiation since the source is myself. However, I do have an email from a USG agency authorizing my specific submission to wikipedia. I am seeking guidance on how best to accomplish the edit. I look forward to your reply. AmIntelAgent32 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@AmIntelAgent32: You cannot use your personal memories to add information into an article. Any information you add will need to come from published reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS RudolfRed (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Is an email from a USG agency authorizing me such an edit not considered a "reliable source" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmIntelAgent32 (talkcontribs) 22:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@AmIntelAgent32: Welcome to the Teahouse! A "USG agency" or any other agency cannot authorize submissions to Wikipedia. However, if you think published independent reliable sources exist (e.g. books, newspapers, magazines) you could post suggestions on the article's talk page to see if others have those sources. GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the inputs from ALL.
However, I am trying to explain that my former employer with the USG had to "provide me with authorization" before I could publish an edit because I used to hold a security clearance. This is a requirement for all former employees. I have an email which verifies my participation in the event which I am trying to edit in wiki. Does this help explain what I am trying to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmIntelAgent32 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It explains what you are wanting to do, and no, you cannot do it. Contributions by individuals based on their experiences or knowledge is considered original research, which is not allowed. Emails are not published, reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
To explain why this is, AmIntelAgent32, suppose somebody next year reads the article, and goes "That's interesting, I never knew that. But I've learnt to be cautious: let's see how Wikipedia knows", and looks for the source. It's a private email that purports to be from somebody to somebody else: even if the names are right, the reader has no way of knowing whether it's genuine. Further, suppose before that that another editor has come in and changed what you said in the article: anybody can. Perhaps they thought your wording wasn't clear, but inadvertently changed the meaning when they tidied it up; perhaps they were involved, and remember it differently from you; perhaps they saw a video about it on YouTube and that said something different; perhaps they don't like you and want to discredit you; perhaps they have come here to vandalise Wikipedia: we can't tell why they changed it. To our hypothetical reader, the changed version may look just as convincing as your original, but they have no way of determining whether or not it is right. This is why we insist on reliably published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Article: "Lists of Support Groups"[edit]

It's been a decade since I edited Wikipedia. --- I was the progenitor (Simesa) of what eventually turned into "Lists of Tourist Attractions", and a few other articles.

--- Today I was in Quora, and would like to suggest an article "Lists of Support Groups".


For the U.S., start with the lists at https://www.mhanational.org/find-support-groups 2601:8A:C180:70:F575:D259:BCDB:65F1 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

IP, if you actually are Simesa, why are you not logged in? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Play fair - that was a bit sharp, wasn't it? Could you remember a password after 13 year's of inactivity? I certainly couldn't!
@ former Simesa - Thank you for your suggestion. I'm not sure that would be that helpful. Not all the key support groups would necessarily be notable, and thus wouldn't be eligible to be on such a list. But if we had such a page it might be interpreted as being a helpful directory listing, yet miss lots of groups off. That could be damaging to some users. But it is an interesting point to consider, and there could be other ways of looking at it, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I probably could but that's probably because I use the same password for everything with some variations Apologies I was merely asking out of curiousity. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, I must correct you on how long it's been since they last edited Wikipedia. They've been inactive for about 7 1/2 years (that's how long it's been since their latest contribution). Still, that's a long time to be gone and a reasonable amount of time to forget a password. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf You're quite right on that one - I'm having real display problems on Chrome on one particular laptop this week - it keeps missing chunks off the page. As a result, I'd not noticed I was looking at one particular page history, rather than their full contributions. Sorry. (It's like editing through a letterbox right now!) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
For "lists of support groups", who is going to keep this up to date in the coming months and years? An article like this can easily become stale. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Elements[edit]

How do I add user boxes to my user page? ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@ExoplanetaryNova: Hello Nova! You simply just put the location of the userbox in curly brackets, so for example, to use my Opera GX userbox I made, you would type {{User:Blaze Wolf/Userboxes/Opera GX}}Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: Here's another link for more userboxes. WP:USERBOXES Severestorm28 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Then how do I make userboxes? ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: Not Blaze Wolf, but maybe this Wikipedia article may help. WP:CREATEUSERBOX Severestorm28 23:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: If you try making a userbox but you can't quite figure it out I just want to let you know that I am always here if you want a custom userbox made. Just make sure you ask me on my talk page and not the Teahouse if you want one. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: if I'm being honest, I almost never create a userbox from scratch. All 3 of the userboxes I've made (only 1 I've added to the userbox gallery) I've based off of another userbox. I based my Opera GX userbox off of ZeroOne's Opera userbox. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article submission not approved[edit]

I received a message that our submission was not accepted because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Adam Epstein is a former Broadway producer who won 12 Tony Awards, including for the original production of the hit musical "Hairspray", and is now the host of the acclaimed podcast, "Dirty Moderate with Adam Epstein". The youngest Tony Winner for Best Musical since 1955 (at the time) and his Broadway credits seem to be both "notable" and "remarkable" as according to the Wikipedia Notability requirements.

I have linked independent sources such as playbill.com that show his credits as a producer, as well as the production company responsible for producing Mr. Epstein's podcast. I am writing on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 72.177.69.1 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft:Adam Epstein, and the creating editor has declared a COI on User page. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Subject meets WP:ANYBIO given the Tony but its mostly/all primary sourced and connected sources. Not sure that's enough to decline as it would likely survive AfD(if only because the gnomes will find a better source).Slywriter (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Submitting article for review[edit]

I have been advised to do this for an article I'm writing but the option doesn't appear, even when I add the code {{AfC submission|||ts=20220128004906|u=SA222F|ns=4}} to the top of the text. How can I do this? Do I just publish the article again? Last time I did this, it was reverted with no explanation and I had to ask directly to get an understanding. SA222F (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I just needed to publish it... SA222F (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SA222F. First a couple of questions and then a suggestion.
Are you connected to this organization in any way? I'm asking this because your account is only a couple days old and the first thing you tried to do was create an article about this organization; moreover, you also posted above that you just needed to publish it. So, at first glance, you have at least an WP:APPARENTCOI. FWIW, this doesn't mean that an article cannot be created but it will be easier for others to help you if you're completely transparent about any connection you have with Draft:Queer Screen. Many Wikipedia editors tend to be more willing to help out when they feel the person asking for assistance isn't trying to pull a fast one.
Have you read through Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The former explains what generally needs to be established for a company or organization to have an article about it added to Wikipedia; in particular, close attention needs to be paid to this. The latter is what Wikipedia refers to as an WP:ESSAY, but it also contains information that you might find helpful.
Finally, you might want to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies for assistance with this draft since they are most likely as familiar as anyone with assessing the subject's Wikipedia:Notability and how to best write such articles. You can also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia too. Posting a message on the talk page of either of those two WikiProjects should get a response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, I meant I just needed to publish the draft for the review to appear, I thought there would be another button that would pop up. Not that I just needed to publish the article and get out of here, sorry for the confusion. Yes, I am affiliated with Queer Screen, but I am not trying to pull a fast one so to speak. I genuinely believe that redirecting the page for Queer Screen to the page for Mardi Gras Film Festival is erroneous, as it doesn't cover the scope of what Queer Screen achieves, including the other notable festivals and community outreach, all of which I've cited in the draft article. Furthermore, it's of note as you say to the LGBT community and is included in various archives (some of which are also cited). I have amended other articles in the past under a different username, but no longer have the login details, but I can appreciate how this appears.
I have read through the notability article and believe Queer Screen is notable enough to warrant an entry. Thanks again! SA222F (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I left a comment on your draft as none of the sources provide anything beyond a passing mention of the organization. WP:NORG gives more specifics about notability for organizations. WP:THREE reliable sources independent of the subject is a good rule of thumb.Slywriter (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove something from edit history?[edit]

I don't really like something in my edit history. Is it possible to remove it? InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@InterstateFive: Hello I-5 Interstate Five! While there is a way to remove (really just hide) edit from the edit history, it will not be done just because you don't like it. See WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:REVDEL for more info. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's on my user page, not on some random Wikipedia article. Does the same policy still apply? InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@InterstateFive: Yes the same policy still applies. Policies apply across all of Wikipedia (with few, if any, exceptions). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
K, thanks! InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@InterstateFive: NO problem. Glad I could help. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, thank you for replying inline and signing I'm only saying this because a lot of users who come to this page don't know how to do that which is understandable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If it's the user page you could request deletion of your userpage. That deletes the entire page incl. edit history. Not something you could request on a frequent base though. Details are explained at WP:U1, basically just need to add {{Db-u1}} to your userpage. And don't forget beforehand to save content from it in case you wanna use it again in the future. – NJD-DE (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@NJD-DE: Wouldn't the edit history be restored if they recreate their userpage? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Njd-de: I hate it when people's usernames in their sig don't match the case of their actual usernameBlaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If there's no contributions from other editors the edit history wouldn't need to be retained, and I don't see a need for restoring the history then upon recreation of the userpage – unless they'd request undeletion. Entirely deleting the userpage really would be only a last-resort option anyway IMO.
Sorry for the inconvenience. When I created my account few years ago I was expecting that usernames aren't case-sensitive. Then I learned better, and I tried to "fix" it with the signature back then. Quickly learnt that's not ideal either, but never did anything about it again..NJD-DE (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Njd-de: Alright sounds good! And don't worry, it's merely a minor annoyance. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate wikidata entries[edit]

2 Duplicate Wikidata e I noticed there are 3 WikiData entries for Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library, and the following two are duplicates, and it makes it annoying searching for it. [3] [4] I cannot tag these or mark them for deletion, so could an administrator delete them? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint, thanks for reporting this! There were three Wikidata items: Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (Q7370120), Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (Q69967544), and Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (Q69486211). The last one is distinct, since it refers to the entire library system, rather than to the building at 229 Washington St., Watertown, NY. But for the former two, I merged them. If you come across something like this again in the future, you can follow the instructions at wikidata:Help:Merge to merge items using the gadget. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick Sandbox Question[edit]

Good evening, Hosts. I have just published my first Wikipedia article, but prior to doing so I used my Sandbox to draft the article, make edits, and so on. Now that I no longer have use for the draft article, is there a specific process/procedure I should utilize for clearing out my Sandbox?

My first inclination was simply to delete all of the text I had built in the Sandbox and then hit "Publish", but that seemed illogical since I would be telling Wiki's writing application to publish an entirely blank page.

Thank you in advance for your input and guidance.

Jeff Baker Bozeman, Montana Wikibaker (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Wikibaker (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikibaker: Hello Jeff! Actually, that is the logical thing to do in this case, to blank the page and save it. YOu could also request for it to be deleted, however just blanking the page to use later would be much easier and quicker. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Blaze Wolf. Will do. (and thanks for the reminder on signing my comments) Wikibaker (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, Wikibaker, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your sandbox is yours to do with as you please essentially, so you can certainly blank the page (delete all of the text and hit publish). If you want the page deleted, you can request a speedy deletion WP:G7. This will completely delete the page and its history, and you'd need to create the sandbox again if you wanted to use it in the future. ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks FormalDude - I'll just delete out the content and hit Publish Changes as you suggest. I appreciate both your and Blaze Wolf's super-fast response. Wikibaker (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikibaker: Glad I could help! It helps when you don't have much else to do except stare at your watchlist. Also, when replying to responses, please remember to add your signature by typing ~~~~Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

My international organization only for fun (micronation type thing) (My own Astronomical Organization)[edit]

How can I make my own organization page in Wikipedia without marking my page as a "hoax"? I want to make my own organization about space and stuff, so everyone could just be interested in my group.Just like Facebook groups, or something like that. (I know, why English is very bad)

Ps: I'm a vexillologist and a science student. Gio loto (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gio loto: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia is not the place to create an article to promote your own organization - see WP:PROMO. Social media may be a better avenue for you. GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, In order to make the article decided by WMF Group. NTDEV (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gio loto: I'm sorry, but you seem to have mis-undertood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not the place to announce or publicize your planned venture. It is an encyclopaedia, where we write articles about established, notable subjects. Your organization will only have an article here after it is well established and has extensive in-depth coverage in the media. Until then, it is too soon.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for discographies?[edit]

Is there a reliable alternative to Discogs for album personnel? Before you ask, AllMusic didn't have the information.  Sumanuil 07:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: How about using {{cite AV media notes}} and using the album itself? GoingBatty (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that per WP:RSP, Discogs is considered unreliable, and AllMusic is considered reliable for reviews but marginal for biographical data. CodeTalker (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know the album itself could be used as a source. But then again, you can use books, so why not other printed text? Sumanuil 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

New content[edit]

New content in Wikipedia Di.anamalinowska (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, can anyone review my contribution on Wikipedia? It`s about implementing new subject- Electrum, that is independent power creator, leading activity in renewable energy sources. As we are now expanding abroad (Israel, Eastern Europe), I would like others to confirm our identity though different sources on the Internet, such as Wikipedia. Will be grafetul for the feedback!  Di.anamalinowska (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the < ! - - you had added around your question because that made the question invisible, also the ref marks bracketing the name of the company. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you have created article draft content in your sandbox: User:Di.anamalinowska/sandbox. I leave to other Teahouse hosts to advise on proper way to attempt an article about a company. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It would really help if a commentator who speaks Polish would chip in, since the majority of the independent sources seem to be in Polish.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Di.anamalinowska: Welcome to the Teahouse! To receive a review of your draft, you could move it to Draft:Electrum (company) and add {{subst:submit}} to the top. I see you uploaded the images as your "Own work". Did you design the logo and take those photographs? Are you an employee of Electrum, or have you been hired by Electrum to create an article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
There is already an article on Polish-language Wikipedia pl:Electrum (przedsiębiorstwo) that has most of the content and the same images. It is currently being discussed for deletion there! It was created last December by Di.anamalinowska, who states she works as a copywriter/marketing specialist in renewables industry. Here on English Wikpedia the way to go is certainly via WP:AfC. It is not forbidden to create a draft (or a translation) if you have a conflict of interest but paid editing must be disclosed on your User Page and the company will need to pass our usual notability test. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dead link removal[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eyesurgeon

I was searching for eye content related and ended up in the above link. There is a list of references on of which seem spammy / advertising. I tried to click on it to verify but it leads to a dead page. Tried to remove but was unable to do so.

Unsure how to proceed.

It's the first link in the references table. 46.177.47.2 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have pointed us to the wrong page, but for general advice on dead links, see Wikipedia:Link rot. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry posted the wrong link! This is the correct!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eyesurgeon

I was searching for eye content related and ended up in the above link. There is a list of references on of which seem spammy / advertising. I tried to click on it to verify but it leads to a dead page. Tried to remove but was unable to do so.

Unsure how to proceed.

It's the first link in the references table 46.177.47.2 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging sections ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing ths matter up. This user page is very similar to -- or the same as? (I didn't check) -- the article Von Graefe knife (which itself is very unsatisfactory). A user page is no place for an article, or an article draft. I'd go ahead and delete it, if I weren't so sleepy (and therefore worried about the risk of making some mistake somewhere). Over to somebody in a different time zone. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It also looks like that user was almost blocked in 2008. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That user has not edited since 2008 and was clearly drafting the article on their User Page rather than in Main Space. When they realized it wasn't appearing in Google searches, they simply created the article Von Graefe knife with the (accurate) edit summary My User Eyesurgeon article does not come up through a Wikipedia Search. Perhaps the title Von Graefe Knife will result in the articles being found through Wikipedia Search and things have gone on from there. I've no idea what the policy is about deleting ancient User Pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've blanked the user page, and fixed a couple of problems in the external links section of the article (which still has major problems). -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

creating my own wiki page for business facts.[edit]

hi, im looking to create a wiki page for my business, just giving the history, facts and a small bit about myself. I have submitted once and got banned, i dont want this to happen and im just looking for some help. Thomvic2022 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If you got banned you must not edit here. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless you go back and successfully appeal the ban (that was of you at a different account?). And was that blocked or banned? David notMD (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thomvic2022, welcome to the Teahouse. Before creating it again, you have to delcare on what is called a COI (Conflict of Interest). You need to strongly delcare your article a COI before you wanted to create for your business. It means that you are creating an article for yourself, your business, or your friend, or whoever you have a relationship with. Please declare a COI before creating your article. Thank you. Severestorm28 13:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD: Is Thomvic2022 a sockpuppet of a different banned account? I searched in the block log and found no results. Severestorm28 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If Thomvic2022 was in fact blocked (banned?) at a previous account and no one has had reason to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, there would be no record of such in Thomvic2022's Contributions. Alternative possibility is that an earlier submission was Declined or Rejected, but no action taken against the editor. We need Thomvic2022 to clarify situation. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate from that discussion, Wikipedia has articles about notable organizations and people, not pages for whoever wants to post whatever. That's what social media is for. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Portal/ Pages about leading figures of international environmental/climate movement[edit]

Is there a discussion about creating portal/pages for leading figures of international environmental/climate movement? Ballancier (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ballancier and welcome to the Teahouse. The general way to answer questions like this is to look at the Talk Page of an article you are sure will be already written (for example Talk:Greta Thunberg) and see which Wikipedia Projects are interested in it. So one on the environment and one on climate change are amongst the places you might like to investigate further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Disappearance of Teresa Davidson-Murphy[edit]

I added more specific references i.e. actual news articles. Can The entry I created for the Disappearance of Teresa Davidson-Murphy be looked at again and reconsider for publishing? VoiceFor (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtest link: User:VoiceFor/sandbox/Disappearance of Teresa (Terry) Anne Davidson-Murphy. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@VoiceFor: There is a chance that if you submit Draft:Disappearance of Teresa Anne Davidson-Murphy it may be accepted. Your current draft is not suitable for Wikipedia though, as it does not use reliable sources and is largely unverified. ––FormalDude talk 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@VoiceFor: Per WP:NCRIME, “People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.” TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No to what is the Sandbox draft, as it contains tremendous amounts of content that has no connection to her disappearance. It appears that FormalDude took the libery of creating a very short draft with a few references - at Draft:Disappearance of Teresa Anne Davidson-Murphy - and proposed that as an alternative. Not clear why, and also no potential to becoming an accepted article. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

url issue with Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr. page[edit]

Hello, Thanks for inviting me to this page. I recently discovered that when I copy this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Wadsworth_Longfellow_Jr. into an email the "." somehow breaks the page. I put in a request to possibly rename the page from Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr. --> Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow that would be nice, if it didn't cause any big problems. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: that is not a valid reason to rename the page, but I created Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr as a redirect to Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr.. The email problem is simply that when you copy a bare url your email program thinks the period is not part of the url. This depends on the program used. MKFI (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that you caused a broken link yourself in your message by using the full URL ending with the period. In Wikipedia we use a wikilink, so Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr.. A redirect exists from Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow, so you can use the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Wadsworth_Longfellow --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Khogong[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Khogong

Are all its sources ok? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Apologies if this sounds a bit rude, however I think it would be best if that article were moved to draftspace. It's literally only 1 sentence with 6 or 7 references attached to it (all of which are google books refs). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karsan Chanda: No, they are not. Adding several copies of the same source (one source was added twice, and another source three times) is not helpful to the reader, and Raj era sources should not be used in articles on the history of India. Not to mention the fact that you had asked about some of these sources before. It is fine to ask questions, of course, but when you ask the same questions multiple times, it looks like you haven't actually read the answers you got before. I have moved the article to draftspace. --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday you created a similarly flimsy draft Draft:Amagarh Fort with eleven words and nine references, then asked for help here at Teahouse. This time, 21 words and eight references. Please stop. You are wasting your time and that of hosts here, and draft reviewers. If you intend to submit drafts, please write enough content that the draft at least qualifies as a Stub. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
When I look at your User page, I see a list of articles you either created or edited. Many of the ones you created are of the same nature - one sentence and several references. You bypassed AfC. Please consider returning to these and adding more content derived from the references, so those would at least be valid Stubs. Furthermore, your Talk page is littered with Speedy deletions, Proposed deletions, declined AfCs and articles that were draftified. All this confirms a need to improve draft quality. David notMD (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a competence-is-required problem, examples of which are clear at Draft talk:Alan Singh wherein Karsan Chanda repeatedly drops in "Help me" without showing any progress toward understanding how Wikipedia functions. Intentions are good - creating articles about all things India - but execution has become a time sink for others. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Life sciences[edit]

What are organic compounds and inorganic compounds=........ What are molecules=...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phumzza (talkcontribs) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Try reading organic compound, inorganic compound, and molecule. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: Also, if you're asking to get help on your homework for school (based off of how you type out the questions), please figure it out on your own. While Wikipedia does try and provide reliable information, it's not made to help you cheat on your homework. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking for help in understanding a scientific concept, you can try asking at the science reference desk, though again, it's not a place for someone to do your homework for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Can you please help me more about editing I don't understand..am new to Wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phumzza (talkcontribs) 16:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Check out WP:TWA. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: Also check out WP:TUTORIAL RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

How to filter search for userbox?[edit]

How do I filter my search in the Wikipedia search box, to where it will only get results for userboxes? The Tips of Apmh 16:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: There isn't one specific way to search userboxes since they are usually created by individual users and therefore are in userspace. There is User:UBX where a user can optionally transfer their userbox to, however not all userboxes are there. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@The Tips of Apmh: There’s a search box on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
There's that as well. Although I'm fairly sure not even that has all userboxes created and being used by users (I have 2 userboxes that are the exact same as other userboxes on there but with the addition of a parameter that i found would be useful for the userbox, however I'm not adding them since I don't know if that would be allowed). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Harmonic Oscillator page has a corrupt element that causes browser crash.[edit]

Hi all, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report this, but the page for Harmonic Oscillators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator) has a corrupt element that causes my version of google chrome (Version 97.0.4692.99 (Official Build) (64-bit)) to crash. It occurs just after I scroll past the Table of Contents. Just wanted to put this somewhere in cases someone who is technically minded wished to inspect it. OrgoOgro (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Ben

@OgroOgro: Works just fine for me.. although the page does seem to lag a bit which is unusual. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@OrgoOgro: Why does your username have to have 2 words that are so similar (nothing you did, just me) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@OrgoOrgo: Woops mixed up the g and r. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Strange, when I access that page, as soon as I scroll past the 4th equation in the section "Driven harmonic Oscillators" my entire browser freezes and becomes unresponsive. I just checked it again. Also I have no clue what I'm doing with HTML, so sorry if I mess anything up, just copying what seems like relevant formatting from your messages. Username is a combo of my old highschool nickname and the fact that I'm a chemist. Ogro is usually taken, so I think its fun to make an eyeball twister! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrgoOgro (talkcontribs)
@OrgoOgro: I would suggest asking at WP:VPT where there are people who know what they're doing. ALso that's alright. Just make sure to sign with ~~~~ when replying. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It works fine for me to, but is a bit laggy like Blaze Wolf said. I think because the page has so many images and math equation pictures it makes you computer freeze and makes mine and Blaze’s lag. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@OrgoOgro: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like Blaze Wolf said, you might be able to find some more help at WP:VPT, but from my personal observations (also using Chrome 97.0.4692.99), I didn't notice any crashes or lag when scrolling through the page or doing some test editing. There don't seem to be too many templates used on the page (which usually explains longer loading times). Could there be some extension you've added to Chrome that may be causing these problems? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, @OrgoOgro, it's fine on Chrome on my fast desktop, but might struggle on my much slower laptop. What I do whenever Chrome plays up is do a clean reboot of my computer, as I heard somewhere that Chrome often keeps hold of computer memory allocations,[citation needed] even after being closed. Have you tried that and does it work for you? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is something from Substack considered a reliable source? Anything? Nothing?[edit]

I could not find anything about Substack on here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Can someone please let me know if something published via that platform is in fact RS material and thus qualified for use as secondary source citation in articles? https://substack.com/ Th78blue (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that depends. Substack is simply a publishing platform that anyone can use, so it must be treated like a blog, or any other newsletter from Mailchimp, or what have you. If the author is a subject matter expert, then maybe, depending on the context. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Right, the guidelines at WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS would apply. DanCherek (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Th78blue: Welcome to the Teahouse. Other users have chimed in on Substack's reliability above me, but there have been mentions of it in the reliable sources noticeboard, such as this discussion, which seem to agree that using it for BLP articles that aren't about the subject of said Substack is not allowed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I am being harassed[edit]

I am being repeatedly harassed with personal attacks by Scobserv here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kumud_Das_(3rd_nomination) and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft%3ASanjib_Baruah. The user Scobserv just signed up today for the sole purpose to harass me. May I ask for help here? Arunudoy (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arunudoy: Sorry you had to deal with that. The editor in question has been warned. If they continue to harass you we can report them to an administrator and have them blocked. If you feel they have posted personal information about you, per WP:OUTING, you may contact the oversight team to have the content removed from the page and its histories. ––FormalDude talk 18:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
FormalDude talk, he did again and more serious in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft%3ASanjib_Baruah. He is accussing me as other. --Arunudoy (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arunudoy: I know, you mentioned that already. As I said they have been warned and if it continues they will be blocked from editing. In the meantime, if you feel they have posted personal information about you, you should contact the oversight team. ––FormalDude talk 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arunudoy: I've redacted the outing and requesting it be oversighted. I'm not going to go much farther than this because I don't want to get dragged into this mess. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


Thank you FormalDude talk and Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 for your kind help. Regards- Arunudoy (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: Scobserv indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Want to check an organization's notability[edit]

Hi! I want to request an article for an organization. But before I do that, I want to make sure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have gone through WP:ORG, but I still want to be sure. I have a few references that I'd like to share so that an experienced editor can go through them and check whether the organization is notable enough. Is Teahouse the right place to share such references? Toofllab (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You can ask at the Teahouse yes. I also want to ask are you associated with the company? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
But, Toofllab, please don't do what some editors do, and post a great long list of references here. Choose the best three or four. If those establish notability, fine. If they don't, it's unlikely that twenty or a hundred weaker ones will do so. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Kaleeb18 Yes, I am. I created a draft and tried publishing it before I was aware of such disclosures. But then I declared my COI on the draft talk and stopped editing it (Draft:Retailo). From what I understand, I need to request a relevant WikiProject to create this article, but before I do that, I want to ensure that it meets the notability requirements. Here are the references: 1, 2, 3, 4. Hope I've done what's needed. Toofllab (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, TGoofllab. I can't seem to open no 3, but the other three are all obviously based on press releases, saying what Retailo wants to say, not what an independent reporter says. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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.
This is therefore somewhat irrelevant, but you're not correct that you need to request a WikiProject to create an article: editors with a COI are permitted to create articles, as long as they declare their COI, and use AFC to put the draft through a review. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism redirecting article of wikipedia[edit]

Resolved

Is there an official article of plagiarism made by moderators on here? If so, can someone redirect me to that article? Thanks. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking for WP:PLAGIARISM? ––FormalDude talk 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
TheAlienMan2002, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, perhaps? Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed i was…thanks! TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Brawl Stars#Seasons[edit]

Hello. I'm 애국심 존중. I Have Question. I Think Brawl Stars#Season Is Violated Many Wikipedia's Policy.

  1. WP:NOTGUIDE
  2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not
  3. WP:VGSCOPE

But When I Editing Talk:Brawl Stars No one Reads. Please See Talk:Brawl Stars. Thank you. 💻HACKER (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 애국심 존중. I tend to agree with you, and have deleted the table of trivia. You could have been 'Been Bold' and done it yourself after not getting any reply for a week. But always be prepared to discuss and reason your actions with other editors. I have reformatted your question as it helps to be a bit less spread out over the page and makes your post more readable. I hope you don't mind. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick questions about Wikipedia articles[edit]

Hello, my fellow Wikipedians, I am new to Wikipedia but I am here to stay. I have a few quick questions and I want to learn them before editing or publishing pages. I have added the pages I want to edit, translate or create to my user page under the title of PIWC.

1 - ) On my first day, I have created a draft about an e-sports organization and send it for review. Today I realize that can add a few more sources (while the sources I have used are valid). I haven't heard about it yet (it's been 3 days), I wonder if I can make changes and send it for review again if it is not approved.

2 - ) There is a specific plant that grows where I live, however, most of the sources I have found are in another language. Since it's an endemic plant, it is hard to find sources in English, is it okay to use foreign sources?

3 - ) There is a service I actively use and I can find various sources about it but they are mostly blogs ("the bla bla softwares/services you should use in 2022" kind). I also find its description on other sites, and its profile on review platforms like G2 or Capterra. (I am not sure if it is okay to add business profiles on Crunchbase or LinkedIn, so I am not planning to include them). Are these sources enough for notability?

4 - ) I like to translate two articles in my native language (magazines), can I transfer their sources (not English) to the pages I create? In addition, I worked in one of these magazines as an intern before, can I still write an article about it?

5 - ) There is a local plateau where I live, I know almost every inch of it and its conditions, but I can not find sources about it. Would giving map coordinates and official data I have found be enough or should I not create the page at all.

I know I kind of dumped all my questions here, and I appreciate any support I get. Thank you all! TheWirelessMonkey (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheWirelessMonkey: See below:
1) You can always edit and it won't change the review, except to make it likelier that the article will be approved. You need more sources besides HLTV.org to demonstrate notability. Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Eternal Fire (Esports Organization)
2) You can use foreign sources.
3) Blogs are unreliable sources. Social media like LinkedIn can't be used since they are user generated. Crunchbase is divisive, but you can use Crunchbase News.
4) You can translate but just don't do it literally so you won't violate the copyright. Writing about a former company is OK.
5) Coordinates won't be enough - there needs to be some indication of why this is a significant place. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, TheWirelessMonkey, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
  1. - you can certainly continue to work on a draft after submitting it for review: you haven't "sent" it anywhere - you've put it on a list of drafts awaiting review.
  2. - English language sources are preferred if they are available, but if not, other language sources are acceptable, provided they are reliably published. See WP:NONENG.
  3. Most blogs are not acceptable as sources. see WP:RS.
  4. Yes, provided the sources are reliable. See WP:translation. If you worked at one of the magazines, you probably have a conflict of interest: this does not bar you from writing or tranlasting the article, as long as you are open about your COI.
  5. Probably not. Inhabited places are normally taken as notable by default, but other geographical features need sourcing.
Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In fact, TheWirelessMonkey, you'd better work on your draft , as there is little chance it will be accepted as it stands. Two of your sources are not reliable (a wiki, and twitter) and the other ones look to me as if they are based on press releases, and hence not independent. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only 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. You have given no reason to think that the company meets English Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Autotranslate[edit]

Auto translate template Template:Autotranslate exists in Wikimedia Commons but for some stupid reason an administrator blocked it from being created on Wikipedia even though we need that template for the Wikipedia copy of Template:TOO-US, a template also originating from Commons. Alex Mitchell of The Goodies (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Alex Mitchell of The Goodies: D they're consensus to create it, you can place a request at Wikipedia:RfPP. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I can’t edit[edit]

I can’t edit because nofollow is applied 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:5936:EB92:3BC2:45E8 (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey there. Can you elaborate? You have lots of edits in your edit history, and you edited here, so I am a bit confused. In theory nofollow should not affect a user of the website in the slightest, it only affects search engines. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Novem Linguae, Every time I post a question, I always this message, “Your edit add new external links” even though I didn’t add any external links. 2603:8000:F400:FCEA:5936:EB92:3BC2:45E8 (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange. Edit filter or spam blacklist comes to mind. I don't see anything in the edit filter log though. Maybe post a screenshot on imgur or something and link it here? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae: There's an odd bug where, if certain types of invalid links are already on a page, then any edit from a non-autoconfirmed editor will trigger a CAPTCHA. That should only affect a few pages, though. 2603, can you tell us which page(s) you are getting this message on? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Found it! It's this page. Suffusion of Yellow alt 7 (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Fixed with Special:Diff/1068560272. Suffusion of Yellow alt 7 (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
2603, you should no longer be incorrectly told that you're adding external links to this page. If you have any problems on any other page, let us know. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Impressive detective work. Great job and we appreciate your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia article name[edit]

Hello, I apologize for asking another question here (as some may have seen my previous question regarding the Wikipedia Library), however I may soon start a draft on the British composer and pianist Oliver King, full name Oliver Arthur King, but there is an article with the same name (and is totally unrelated, and note King Oliver is also a different person), so should I name the article as "Oliver King (composer)" or as Oliver Arthur King, both names seem popular, IMSLP gives his works as Oliver King, but also does mention the "Arthur" middle name, however some biographical dictionaries/books refer him as his complete name Oliver Arthur King or Oliver A. King.

Based on journals by The Musical Times, the name Oliver King might be more popular, but besides common name, what other factors are used to decide the name of Wikipedia articles, and what should the name be for this one?

Thank you, the person seems to have been popular in his day, suddenly forgotten over the century - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 04:52, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, RandomEditorAAA, and welcome to the Teahouse. (And please don't apologise for asking questions! That's what this page is for). The policy and all its ramifications are laid out in WP:TITLE. In short, either Oliver Arthur King or Oliver King (composer) might be appropriate. But my advice is not to worry about this. Unless you are confident that your very first attempt will be a strong enough article to survive in mainspace, you should work by creating a draft anyway (see WP:AFC): just call it Draft:Oliver King. When your draft is accepted, the reviewer who accepts it will sort out any naming or disambiguation issues. --ColinFine (talk) 12:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
If you have strong views on the "correct" article title, based on WP:Common, for example, you can make your suggestion on the Talk Page of your draft, which the reviewer will notice. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Stefano Cabrera notability[edit]

Hi everyone, I'm a composer and cellist and I'd like to create a Wiki page about my work. The topic would be "Stefano Cabrera". Since I know one of the main goals for Wiki is to have reliable sources and to only approve notable topics, and it's not easy for me to find out if I meet the required criteria, I'm here to ask for your kind help. My name is already on other Wiki pages (Hotel Portofino TV series, GnuQuartet). I'm also a YouTuber, known as GnuS Cello, if that can help. Many thanks for your help! Stefanocabrera (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Stefanocabrera. There are couple of things that you probably need to understand before trying to puruse this further, but a good place to start would be to realize that a Wikipedia article is not a "bio page" like you might find on social media or a personal website. A Wikipedia article is basically going to be based on what others (i.e. reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia) have been saying or reporting about you and your various achievements, and not on what you want or think others should know about you. You will not have any type of final editorial control over what's in the article or prevent others from editing the article. It's quite possible that content will start appearing in the article that you might not approve of or that the article may not be focusing on the things you want it to focus on. So, before you try and puruse this any further I strongly suggest that you carefully read through the following pages: Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Notability (music), Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (particularly this and this), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (particularly this), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and Wikipedia:Ownership of content. That probably seems like quite a lot to read up on, but those pages contain some basic information which I think you'll find helpful. You basically are going to need to self-assess not only whether an article about you (please note it will be "written about you" and not "written for you") can be written by you or anyone for that matter, but also whether you actually want to have an article written about you since basically you'll have zero control over it. For reference, your permission isn't really needed for someone else to try and write such an article, and most articles seem to be written without any such consent. The fact that you're trying to create one yourself might cause some to question your motivation for doing so and whether you think Wikipedia is something it really isn't. What you want to do is not impossible, but it's likely going to be very hard. It might be better for you to continue doing the things you've been doing out in the real world and gaining notice in reliable sources, and then let someone else try and create an article about you. Sometimes people create articles about themselves only to end up trying to get them deleted after finding out that Wikipedia doesn't work exactly the way they thought it did. Finally, one last thing that you also might want to look at is this. It's OK to use your real name as your Wikipedia username if you want, but there's no way for others to know who you are for sure and there may be real world implications that aren't evident at first. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Stefanocabrera (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". The special Wikipedia definition of a notable composer is at WP:COMPOSER and that of a notable musician is at WP:BAND. You must receive significant coverage in independent reliable sources in order to merit an article. Please be advised that autobiographical articles, while not forbidden, are highly discouraged, in part because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please read WP:AUTO. Articles are typically written by independent editors without any connection to the subject.
Please be advised that an article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Need justice in mentally harassed with false allegations by user Onel5969[edit]

User Onel5969 is repeatedly harassing me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib_Baruah with false allegation of UPE/COI. Though I have declared, the user is taking advantage of his/her being seniority Is this Wikipedia about, where senior harrases juniors? I do appeal for justice. Unless I get justice, I will refrain from any Wiki edit for an indefinite period as of now. Arunudoy (talk) 09:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arunudoy: Since whether there's a COI is already being discussed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Draft:Sanjib Baruah, then that's probably where it will need to be resolved. The Teahouse isn't really set up to resolve such issues and bringing this up here (even with the best of intentions) will most likely only lead to confusion due to a splitting of the discussion. As for claims of harrassment, you're probably better off bring that up for discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents since that's where concerns about editor behavior are best discussed. Before you do so, however, you might want to take a look at this, this and this. Please understand that I'm not judging you or your claims. I'm just trying to point out that the Teahouse may not be the best place for you to seek assistance with respect to something like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: What is going there except @Onel5969:'s false allegation? --Arunudoy (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Once again, the Teahouse is not really the best venue to discuss editor behavior (particularly serious claims such as this) other than perhaps to give some general guidance. Please read the pages I linked to above. If you feel that administrator action is truly needed, then the best venue for you to seek such assistance would be at WP:ANI. Please understand, though, that adminstrator noticeboards are not places where anything goes; you will be expected to justify not only your claims against this other editor, but may also be asked to justify your actions as well. That is why I suggested that you look at WP:ANI advice before starting a discussion at ANI, paricularly if you've never participated in such a discussion before. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to Unblock our IP-Address 182.72.191.18[edit]

Hello Wikipedia. We need to upgrade our Information about Vasanth & Co .Our Information is Totally Incorrect now,so we can edit the Wikipedia Page and uploaded Correct Information & Content but its not updated and then our mail account has been blocked. So Kindly retrieve the Account .We are Provide the Correct Information About our organization. We Wont insert information regarding offers, Promotions, marketing related, Sales or Unwanted Content. Once we upload the Correct Information Now but it will be retrieve again, after that Account has been Blocked IP-Address 182.72.191.18 . Please do the needful for our Works. Wikipedia page is must needed in our side. Kindly unblock our Wikipedia page .Thank you. 2409:4072:6E88:5021:212B:9727:4AAD:7EE0 (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Vasanth & Co

This is not going to happen. Two things:
(edit conflict)The first thing you probably need to do is carefully read through Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure to become more familiar with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines with respect to this type of thing. The account you mentioned above (User:182.72.191.18) doesn't appear to have ever been blocked, but the article Vasanth & Co has been protected because of disruption due to persistent sockpuppetry which means it can only be edited by certain types of accounts. If there's information in the article that you feel is inaccurate or otherwise needs to be changed, the thing for you to do would be to make edit requests on the article's talk page as explained here. Other editors unconnected to the company will assess your request in terms of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and then make changes if they're OK to make. The thing that you don't want to do is continue to try and directly edit the article yourself once the protection of the page has expired because that's likely only going to lead to the article being re-protected for an even longer period of time. Seeking assistance from others on the article talk page and being as transparent as possible about your connection to the company is your best course of action in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Indonesian capital (please edit it)[edit]

Indonesians from Jakarta are now moving to a new capital, it's called "Nusaranta", and it's a new capital for now. So please edit it. Gio loto (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

First, this is probably not the right venue for it (you should instead go to the talk page of the article itself), but second, this new capital has only been proposed; we should wait until the change of capital is official. twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 10:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Gio loto, and welcome to the Teahouse. As per my knowledge (and reliable sources), Nusaranta is the proposed capital of Indonesia. The current one remains Jakarta. If it is not so, please provide a reliable source. For more fact-related questions, the best place to ask would be Wikipedia:Reference desk or the article talk page. Thank you, and happy editing! Kpddg (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Free Improvisation[edit]

Hello there. I want to add my third book, about the London Musicians Collective, to the references at the bottom of the Wiki Free Improvisation page. How do I do this? Nathan Barre (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2022 (UTC)