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

Editor Assistance/101?[edit]

This may be the wrong place for this, but I'm new to the editing world on Wiki and honestly am trying to get better. I'm taking on the task of covering a topic that hasn't been added yet and was wondering if someone could give me a quick 101/take a look and provide suggestions? Martystlouis21 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy link Draft:Orkin Canada (Formerly PCO Services Inc.)

:@Martystlouis21 You asked this at another venue too. Please don't waste volunteer time by asking the identical question in two separate place. See here. If you are connected to this company (as your edits suggest to me that you are), you should follow guidance given at WP:COI and declare if you are being WP:PAID, whether as a consultant or employee. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm in no way connected to a company/not being paid etc. I was doing research and this was a good one to start with because they don't have a presence and it was notable, so I thought it was a perfect first article for me. Apologies for the double posting, but as mentioned I'm newer to the Wiki space. Martystlouis21 (talk) 22:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes "Please don't waste volunteer time by asking the identical question in two separate place." -- This is unfair: they where directed to the teahouse from the help desk by Helloheart. @Martystlouis21, looking at the article, the first thing I notice is that it shouldn't have the former name ("PCO Services Inc.") included in the title, but when and if its published you can create a redirect from that name. small jars tc 22:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Martystlouis21 Please accept my apologies and for my 'bitey reply'. It was not appropriate, and I'd not fully read the answer you got at our help desk. We do get that happening a lot, but it's no excuse for me being so sharp with you. Thank you for clarifying your non-involvement with it. (Just fixing my failed ping to Martystlouis21.) Nick Moyes (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martystlouis21: To try to make amends somewhat, I took a look at your draft. I think the biggest worry might be meeting our notability criteria for businesses (see WP:NCORP). It might pass, but Orkin (Canada) seems just to be a subsidiary of the larger Orkin company (about which we already have a page). So I do wonder whether it's appropriate or necessary to have a standalone article for it, rather than briefly mentioning the subsidiary, and linking it with a WP:REDIRECT.
It's best to avoid citing statements from websites related to the company itself. Thus, your very first statement that it is the largest pest control company in Canada is based upon the parent company website, Rollins, Inc.. It is better to look for independent sources that talk about the company in detail and in depth to substantiate such a claim, and not the company itself.
When you use the 'Cite' button to add references, it helps to not just rely on the auto-complete process, but to add in the fields missed out. For example, for newwspaper stories it helps to add the author name if you can. e.g. Citation[1]
But all in all, it has a good structure, though I think relies too heavily on insider sources, rather than wholly independent ones, such as mainstream news media. And some of those sources only really mention the company in passing, rather than talking directly about it in detail. Hoping this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my view: it's about a division of a company, which is probably not in itself notable. None of the sources cited helps to establish notability: they're all based on press releases, or on what a spokesperson for the company has said, and so not independent. An example is the one cited here (which also lacks any discussion of the subject). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talkcontribs) 07:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Bonang, Eilish (4 November 2021). "Moncton, N.B., earns dubious honour as Atlantic Canada's 'rattiest city'". Atlantic. Retrieved 5 August 2022.
@Martystlouis21, please don't remove others' talk page posts (or your own posts if they've been replied to). Teahouse discussions will automatically be archived after several days of inactivity. (talk) 16:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up to Major edit needed: how do I best approach this?[edit]

I've been doing my best to make an article that is widely helpful and, above all, *accurate*, about Hudibras, the C17 verse satire, and I uploaded it today. I'd really welcome any thoughts that editors with that more experience may have. No doubt someone more expert would have done it much better, and more sophisticatedly.

There hasn't been a lot of seriously good research on Hudibras since 1967, as far as I can see; while all too often what people have written (or published on Wikipedia) is rather confused, or just plain factually wrong. Everything that can't be properly footnoted I've tried to make sure is firmly and unarguably sourced in the text itself. All thoughts very welcome. GoldenDorset (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, GoldenDorset. It is clearly a notable topic and you have provided a lot of detail. I have no expertise on the topic, but I noticed that many of your references display URLs. You should reconfigure your references so that the URLs are hidden although clickable, and only the bibliographic information is displayed to the reader. Referencing for beginners may be helpful. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cullen 328, warmest thanks for this! I absolutely agree, and tried to do exactly that, but somehow couldn't make it work. I will go back to the fray as soon as I'm next free, study the Referencing for beginners wiki (I've studied so many info pages in the last few week, but I haven't come across that one before!) and *make it work*. GoldenDorset (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your good work, GoldenDorset. Just a few points that will keep you busy for now. First (and simply): You may wish to insert verse within <blockquote><poem>this</poem></blockquote> markup. ¶ Secondly, and illustrated by one randomly selected extract: Hudibras and Ralpho set out, very like Quixote and Sancho Panza, Who says that the one pair resembles the other? to combat those whom they consider to be their enemies. Throughout their adventures and humiliations, the third key person of the story [...] Who says that she's the third key person? Et cetera. ¶ Oh, and there's this: It is noticeable that not once, in over 11,000 lines of satiric verse, does either of them laugh or smile. Did somebody (you?) notice that they don't smile or laugh; or is it possible that this reader failed to notice hints that they smile or laugh? (After all, it's a long poem; and would-be readers have been known to doze off in places.) Perhaps "Not once, in over 11,000 lines of satirical verse, is either of them described as smiling or laughing"? ¶ Not hyphens in for example "(I:iii:757-928, pp. 82-87)", but instead en dashes: "(I:iii:757–928, pp. 82–87)". ¶ Hmm, one more: No mention of hudibrastic(s)? -- Hoary (talk) 22:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hoary, warmest thanks. the <blockquote> reference is invaluable, and I'm deeply grateful. and the preference for en-dashes, which I find totally congenial! As for the laughing ans smiling, I've read the whole of Hudibras through several times since the 1970s (without dozing off, though I take your point!), including three weeks ago when I was specifically checking that point out. I think what I've written is accurate.
I'll deal with both the others as soon as I can get back to "Hudibras", but my general health issues and in particular the current heatwave have wiped me out for the time being. I'll try to follow up all your thoughts as soon as I can make a space to work in the cool (e.g. before dawn one morning!) GoldenDorset (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, should have added: you're absolutely right about "Hudibrastics". I'm drafting a section about that for this page, but I want to keep it short and very specific: I don't want to overlap the article "Hudibrastic", and though this could do with being broadened and deepened, that's not on my own to-do list at present! GoldenDorset (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Blockquotes for poems — I've tried to get this out, but the line-spacing within the poems seems a bit airy. Have I got something wrong? All advice welcome! GoldenDorset (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You've attached Template:In use to the top. Its documentation tells us that "The In use template message is for pages actively undergoing a major edit." Putting aside the rather bizarre notion of "actively undergoing" anything, then ... it doesn't seem as if the article is now undergoing any kind of editing. -- Hoary (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry not to have written back more promptly on this point, Hoary: I've cleared up both of the old template messages. (Access to the workstation is rather limited in this hot weather, so things currently move very slowly in this study.) All the best! GD. GoldenDorset (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted to Created a Company Page[edit]

Hi all,

I wanted to know How can I create a Company Page and What all information do I need to add so it should not get reverted by the moderators.

Recently I was trying to edit one of my Brand Page: Scaler and I had added a paragraph about the company and it got reverted by the moderators.

Wanted to understand possible ways to contribute.

Thanks! Bikashdaga09 (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Bikashdaga09 Wikipedia does not have company pages. We have encyclopedia articles about notable companies. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You have a Conflict of interest regarding any business you own. Please do not edit those pages directly, although you can leave a well-referenced formal Edit request on the talk pages of the specific articles. Since you have a financial stake, please make the mandatory Paid contributions disclose. Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title Scaler is already in use for a disambiguation page ("dab" for short): a list of topics such as Video scaler and Scaler (video game) which might be called "Scaler". An article on a new topic, if notable, should go on a new page rather than just overwriting that list. Certes (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bikashdaga09: You fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is and does.

We're not interested at all in anything you, your company, your client, your band, or your holy men have to say about themselves, we delete spammy/promotional/hagiographical content upon discovery, and you will not be able to dictate the content that is on any article about your company. We are volunteer editors who have barely tolerated disclosed paid editing in the first place and our volunteer administrators are not afraid to block users whose sole purpose is to push a corporate ad campaign or pretty up their/their bosses'/their client's/their band's/their denomination's entry. There is no manager you can speak to; Wikipedia's paid staff only maintain the servers normally and do not interdict editorial policies barring specific and very limited circumstances. We do not kowtow to you or to your requests to have an article or to write it in whatever manner you/your company/your client/your band/your preacher desire.

We are limited to whatever in-depth, non-routine, independent-of-you sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking say about you/your company/your client/your denomination and are not permitted to extrapolate from this at all, especially where living people are a topic. We don't care about whatever routine business news you trot out, whatever meagre resume-padder awards you've won, or whatever business profiles you dredge up. We don't care about whatever prattle your principals say in interviews or news stories. We will not accept low-rent churnalism or dog-bites-man coverage as acceptable sources.

Reading the above, you may feel like you have to call your legal firm. Don't. Threatening to sue volunteer editors will not only get you, anyone you send in your stead, and any agents of your company blocked (partly to make work easier on your lawyers), it's also highly likely to damage your reputation. We are not obligated to have an article about your company in the slightest, and we are not obligated to allow you or your agents to edit Wikipedia, doubly so if there is a (potential) lawsuit involved.

Germaine de Stael once said, "In life, one must choose between boredom and suffering." No article is the boredom. Fighting the community on this and aggressively maintaining this misunderstanding is the suffering.Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 23:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How i can have wiki page[edit]


i am Singer and performer from USA how i can have my wiki page (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You can't, because we don't have "wiki pages". We have articles, typically written by independent editors, about notable topics. If you truly meet the special Wikipedia definition of a notable musician, as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, someone completely independent of you will eventually take note of your career and choose to write about you. Be advised that a Wikipedia article about yourself is not necessarily a good thing. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse! Writing an autobiography is heavily discouraged on Wikipedia, as well as paying someone to make your own.
Asparagusus (interaction) 15:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Making a map of self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom[edit]

Dear Teahouse,

I came across Self-managed social centres in the United Kingdom recently, but the static map from 2006 is badly out of date. I was thinking about trying to use a template to create an editable map, such as the Template:Location map+. Does anyone know of a more fitting template? Does anyone know of a way to auto-generate the template from corresponding wikidata items, rather than entering the data manually?

Cheers, DougInAMugtalk 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Douginamug. Welcome to the Teahouse. I think you win this months prize for the most interesting and challenging question. I think you're on the right track with the template you suggested, but I agree that creating a map from Wikidata does sound the most logical approach for maps with innumerable point on them. It is a very technical question for this newcomer help forum. So, if you don't get an answer here in reasonable time, you could consider asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps, or WP:VPT, or over at Wikidata (here). I would start by looking at what raw data and the format that geolocation info is currently available in, so that you know how much, if any, location data you might have to convert into a format our solutions here would handle. Then ask yourself how would another person best update any map in another 10 years time- would it be easy for them, or an incredibly complex task? Sorry this isn't the answer you sought, but I hope it may give a few pointers, or that someone with more skills at mapping on Wikipedia can help you.
(BTW: Please ping me if you get an answer on another forum - I've spent half my working life mapping biodiversity data using RECORDER, DMAP and MapInfo GIS. But I have absolutely no clue how to create distribution maps here!) Nick Moyes (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nick Moyes thanks for your tips! I'll have a dig and play around... perhaps @Maxlath and/or @Pintoch have some thoughts? DougInAMugtalk 18:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome. Maproom might have some ideas, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate footnotes[edit]

In Peter Swales (historian), footnote 1 appears in the opening sentence twice, and then, in the footnote, as "a" and "b." Footnotes 2 and 8, and footnotes 11 and 13, are also identical pairs, and each pair should have a single number and an "a" and "b". I don't know how to format that. Would another editor please do so? (If it's easy to do, then please explain how.) Maurice Magnus (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maurice Magnus. The procedure is called named references. The full reference is defined and named once, and then a very brief reference tag is used elsewhere. Please see WP:NAMEDREFS and try it yourself. Cullen328 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, but I don't understand that. In [1], I don't know what to put in "name" or in "content." I'm sorry, but I prefer to do substantive editing and copyediting to learning technical stuff. In this case, furthermore, it's not important; it's just two footnotes twice each. Maurice Magnus (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine. You can leave them as two footnotes linking to the same source. Maybe some day someone will come along and replace them by a single named reference used twice. Maproom (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maurice Magnus  Done - see my recent edits to the article. GoingBatty (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Next time I'll try to do it myself. It would be embarrassing to ask again at Teahouse. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Next time" has already occurred, and it wasn't so difficult. I added material to the second sentence of Peter Swales (historian) and footnoted it with a source that had already been used, giving them the same footnote numbers. Thanks again. Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adding: the name does not appear in the text off the encyclopaedia article, only when editing it. ColinFine (talk) 16:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The content is everything that should appear in the citation: title, date, author, publication, URL etc. The name is a name you make up to refer to this particular reference, and thereafter you just need to use the name when you want to cite the exactly the same reference again. If the name has any spaces or special characters, you need to put it in quotes; but people often put the name in quotes anyway. ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. ^ content


so i want to ask about these and what is criket? (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

but what about criket? (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try spelling it cricket? Maproom (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you mean Krikkit. Shantavira|feed me 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or cricket; or Criccieth; or even Cricket (disambiguation). Nick Moyes (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's also Cricut, I hear. Perfect4th (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I upload a jpg into an existing article? The image is on Wikimedia and my desktop. Thanks in advance.[edit]

Can't seem to find an answer on Youtube. Dutchviz (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't. Images are called as if they were articles, with [[File:(image name)|##px|(caption)]]. Note that being on Commons means you can call it from Commons directly this way. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 20:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, so I can't add the jpg to the existing Article? (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you talking about File:WAGS plate SoccerPlex crop.jpg, which you have uploaded to Commons? There's a link at the top of that page called "Use this file" which gives you the string you have to insert into a Wikipedia article to display it. If you use the Visual editor, I don't know how you do it, but I'm sure it's straightforward. You will need the whole name, including the .jpg, and you need to get the case and spaces exactly right. ColinFine (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Uploading the image to Wikimedia Commons is a good first step. The second step is to add code to your article as Jeske suggested above. See Help:Pictures for a more detailed explanation. GoingBatty (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dutchviz: Did you take this photo yourself or did you find it somewhere online? There are two things in play here related to image copyright that are going to affect whether Commons is able to keep the file you uploaded. The first has to do with the copyright status of what's shown in the photo and the second has to do with the copyright status of the photo itself. The plate is probably too simple in design for it to be eligible for it's own copyright protection and would most likely be considered to be in the public domain under US copyright law. The photo, on the other hand, is probably just creative enough for it to be eligible for its own copyright (separate of the photographed work) which means it's does need to be taken into account. If you took this photo yourself, then it's considered your c:COM:Own work; if you didn't take the photo, then it's not and the c:COM:CONSENT of the person who did take the photo needs to be verified for Commons to keep the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

have what I believe is a cask off of the uss trumbriull 1722 have a picture[edit]

I would like to show someone and see what they think of it. maybe someone knows what they used it as

thanks tom 2600:8800:A596:1500:A82C:87CD:7C73:1404 (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not the place to ask about/appriase artefacts. Find a historian near you. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse! Along with what the other person said, asking this question at the Reference Desk (in whatever section you see fit) would probably get you better results. The Teahouse is a place for new Wikipedia editors to ask questions about the project. Have a good day/night!
Asparagusus (interaction) 14:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice can be removed on this page - Multidimensional Poverty Index[edit]

Hello everyone - I added some citations and corrected previous citation title errors on this page - Multidimensional Poverty Index. I feel the notices on top are 6 years old and they can now be removed since the issue seems to be addressed. I would love to have some opinions on this. I didn't want to remove the notice without having some opinions. Thank you. ANLgrad (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed the 2016 tags, as article length and referencing much improved since then. Article needs to be rated for class and importance. David notMD (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much User:David notMD. Totally agree with you. If you need me to find more references, please let me know and I shall do that. ANLgrad (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is not yet rated. As I know nothing about the topic, I will not do that. Improve it if you wish. David notMD (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, will do. ANLgrad (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help regarding improving Draft:Govind Dholakia and check references[edit]

Hello This is Brakshit. Draft:Govind Dholakia, a page i am trying to create since long, Due to reference it gets reject or finding wrong impression past or something else. so if you would Guide me through. Its pretty much in line and much neutral. I have added much valued references and news and details which might help.

Thank you for your help in advance Brakshit23 (talk) 04:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brakshit23: Please see Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what's expected.
A source must be reliable and independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage. All three attributes must be present. Your references include:
  • A hospital website where he works - not independent, not significant
  • A corporate website of SDB - not independent, not significant, doesn't even mention the subject
  • A library index of the subject's own works - not independent, not even coverage
  • A promotional press release on Solitaire International - written by the subject or an associate, not independent, and likely not reliable due to the promotional content
  • A De Beers web page that doesn't even mention the subject
  • A Business Standard review of Dholakia's autobiography - it would qualify as significant coverage, but based on material (autobiography) that isn't independent of the subject
  • A People Matters interview - we don't care what an article subject says about himself; this isn't independent coverage
  • A brief mention on the USGBC awards page - while USGBC is notable, the award may not be, and this coverage is not significant
  • A page on the Penguin Books website promoting one of his books - not significant, not independent
  • A Press Trust of India review of his autobiography - that makes two reviews, which suggest notability of the book, but not the author
None of thouse sources meet our criteria, and none of them demonstrate notability. You might be better off writing an article about his autobiography, which does have some reviews.
Note that your draft has been rejected, not merely declined. That means you need to give up and move on, or completely start over. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank You Mate.. Really appreciate. thus far more satisfying and guiding answer to work upon.
Will start again and do the needful and really thanks for your help. Brakshit23 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is your connexion to Dholakia? Answer this before you do anything else. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 06:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At User talk:Brakshit23, Brakshit23 denied paid or any COI on 28 June. David notMD (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is possible that Shree Ramkrishna Exports, the billion dollar company he founded, can qualify for an article even though Dholakia does not. David notMD (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inherent notability of achievements[edit]

I'm an editor in WikiProject Schools, and I come across the issue where sources are not properly cited to prove the non-trivialness/notability of extracurricular/athletic accomplishments (WP:WPSCH/AG#OS specifies that an achivement should not only be verified, but also notable. So say, sources that come from the competition organization's website may be a reliable primary source, but primary sources do not signify any sense of notability, only reliable secondary sources do).

However, I have been editing with a principle that there are some achivements with inherent notability, such that these reliable primary sources can be cited. An obvious example, national championship to a notable competition is notable in itself, so the competition website can be cited (though not the school website, since the school would be biased to promote themselves). But where should the line be drawn? Or should the idea of inherent notability even be a thing?

Currently, the WikiProject Schools article advice (WP:WPSCH/AG) does not talk about this (and as far as I'm aware of, neither does any policy or guideline). However, I was told some years ago that the top 2 in the state/province are generally notable in itself, and have been generally applying a version of this advice to articles. However, there has been a recent conflict about this, so I would like to reach out for advice. And in retrospect, I should've reached out for advice long ago.

I believe that notability should be based off of when it can be determined with enough confidence (whatever that may entail) that an achievment is as or more extraordinary than other achievements that would generally recieve secondary coverage. Personally, I believe this to generally be around the top 2-3 in the state/province (though of course this may vary), and is also based to some extent on the structure of the competition (for example, 3rd or 4th in a finals of eight teams is generally more notable than a team making it to semi-finals where only two teams face each other), although only to the small extent that news media emphasizes in this particular manner since the structure is merely based off of the nature of the competition. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, TheGEICOgecko. That essay you linked to misuses the word "notable". In Wikipedia terms, Notability applies to the topic of an article, not to specific content items within an article. There is no such thing as inherent notability, although certain types of topics have a strong presumption of notability. Notability is determined by the quality of coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. As for including content about an athletic championship in an article about a school, a secondary source is certainly preferable, and the issue of due weight also comes into play. It would not be appropriate if a local basketball fan creates a lengthy, detailed section about the local basketball team, while the school's championship baseball team is ignored. In the end, if there is a contest disagreement, consensus to include is required. Cullen328 (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Golly, thanks for that clarification, Cullen328. (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328: So to flip it the other way around, would there be such a thing as trivialness? Like say, WP:WPSCH/AG says that vice principals shouldn't be listed. In the same way, should it be the case that certain achivements should not be listed if it is trivial, even if it has reliable sources, but only reliable primary sources, such as a competition's website? Or should it be the case that minor achivements should not be considered too trivial to include, in the event that only reliable primary sources exist? I guess what I'm tring to get at: is due weight the only reason one shouldn't go into every little available detail (from reliable sources) about a basketball team? Like, would it be appropriate to describe things in extreme detail if that kind of detail was applied to everything else? And if not, how would one determine whether too many details or too trivial lists/achivements are included? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TheGEICOgecko, due weight is one consideration; another consideration is that an encyclopedia is not the "last word" on a subject, per the concept of an encyclopedia and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Wikipedia is not a repository of minor detail of interest only to a few people. Take a look at articles of a similar nature which have a higher than average rating, and try to follow their level of detail.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia pages were served by a different domain[edit]

For a few minutes today (19:21 - 19:38 2022 August 8 UTC) my accesses of Wikipedia were redirected to As near as I can tell the content was genuine. I started at, searched, got pages at that domain.RussellBell (talk) 06:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What did you search for? Shantavira|feed me 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bomber command RussellBell (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RussellBell: It's unlikely to have been anything at our end. Your post is the only mention of iliensale at Numerous websites show our pages. Maybe you actually started in an external search engine or something was adding ads to your browser. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't start in an external search engine. My home page is a page on my computer that I maintain myself. It has 1 link for wikipedia: I was browsing with lynx, to which nothing adds advertising. I don't think it was anything at your end. I think somebody poached my accesses, that this may be of interest to you. Why does iliensale have a copy? RussellBell (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RussellBell: We allow reuse with attribution. Reusers don't have to ask for permission and we don't ask them why they do it (sometimes to get free content to place ads on). See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks for lists with hundreds of others, and many are not listed. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How did a search on end up served by a different domain? I can only suspect DNS hacking. RussellBell (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RussellBell I'd say beware. I just visited that link (which I assumed to be a mirror) got prompted to install Adobe Flash (which I declined, and then after 5 seconds I appear to have been redirected to an anime porn site. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I browse with lynx, which makes such shenanigans impossible. RussellBell (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RussellBell:, this sounds like browser hijacking to me. Are you searching from either the url address bar in your browser, or a dedicated 'search' field near the address bar at the top of the browser window instead of from the search engine itself? You can test the hijacking theory by going directly to google or whatever you think your preferred browser search engine should normally be using and searching from their home page, and then trying the same search from the browser address bar. If you don't get the same results, either you changed your browser search engine, or some malware did. Or, you may have poltergeists, but the Tea house can't help with that. Mathglot (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lynx has neither a 'url address bar' nor a 'a dedicated "search" field near the address bar at the top of the browser window'. There is, in fact, no window: I'm not in X or any graphical environment. I'm not using a search engine. I was at and used Wikipedia's search.RussellBell (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Big Steals[edit]

I'm going to do some editing to the article for The Big Steal (a 1949 movie). I see there could be some confusion about this title and some other terms (there's already a hatnote regarding The Big Steal (1990 film)): Timothy Wade Corder's book with the same title (no Wikipedia article), the term "The Big Steal" used in reference to the 2020 Presidential election, the term "The Big Lie" used in reference to the same election, or Big Lie, a Wikipedia article about a concept in general. Which of these are actionable, and which tool should be used to ameliorate the confusion in each case (hatnote, disambiguation, or redirect)? Pete Best Beatles (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles are there substantial book reviews for the book for it to pass WP:NBOOKS' criteria? – robertsky (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reviews I see are all little snippets on commercial book-seller websites. Does Good Reads count as a RS? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pete Best Beatles: According to WP:UGC, "Examples of unacceptable user-generated sites are, Facebook, Fandom, Find a Grave, Goodreads ..." Deor (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the way, I can find no instance of "the term 'The Big Steal' used in reference to the 2020 Presidential election" on Wikipedia, so it looks like there's nothing to disambiguate there. And "big lie" is a different enough term that I don't think you need to worry about it. Deor (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that Pete was misremembering the "Stop the Steal" slogan and getting it confused with "the Big Lie". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't getting them confused, I just thought there was a possibility others might. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. So then do you think "Big Lie" (the Wikipedia article) is similar enough to deserve a hatnote? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) Pete Best Beatles (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Pete Best Beatles. In my opinion, no hatnote is needed in this case. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So much ado about nothing. I still feel it was responsible to ask - that big bold "The Big Steal" at the top of the movie page shouted out "public affairs" to me. (By the way, it's a really good movie.) -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Courtesy @Pete Best Beatles:. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:40, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About decline[edit]

Despite following all the guidelines of Wikipedia, many articles by pre-existing authors deliberately decline. so what should we do Mpsaharan8 (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles are not declined if they follow the guidelines. Can you give an example? If you are referring to your own submissions I suggest you read the messages on your talk page and click on the blue links for further explanation. If there any specific points you still don't understand feel free to ask a more specific question here. Shantavira|feed me 09:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Being a "pre existing author" does not mean that anything that author writes is automatically accepted. 331dot (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article on British artist Dorothy Adamson (1893-1934)[edit]

I'd be grateful for some advice please. The artist Dorothy Adamson, who I believe is notable as she was a member of the Royal Institute of Oil Painters and Royal Institute of Painters in Water Colours) has not got an article in the English Wikipedia, but there is one on the Welsh Wikipedia The latter is very minimal and has the wrong birth date. I would like there to be an improved article about this artist but don't speak Welsh - although I could work with a family member who does. Adamson was born in England and spent most of her life there so does not have a strong Welsh connection, although she died in Wales. Should I seek to improve the Welsh article or to get approval for one in English Wikipedia? Thanks for any advice. Buckland1072 (talk) 12:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Buckland1072: Welcome to the Teahouse. The policies and guidelines differ between the Welsh and English Wikipedias; the biggest one is probably notability as Wikipedia defines it. If you wanted to properly create an article about her on here, you would need to find reliable, secondary sources to establish that. It's probably easier to improve the existing article on the Welsh Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buckland1072 Of the four citations on the Welsh entry, the first doesn't mention her and two others I can reach via their URL merely show that she exists, with no significant coverage. English Wikipedia has pretty stringent notability requirements which unfortunately these references won't support. You will have to look for decent sources before you can draft an article here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:59, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you both very much. That's very helpful. In my research I haven't found very good published sources so she's probably not notable enough. Buckland1072 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Buckland1072. It's perhaps unfortunate that we use the word "notable" as it does not mean exactly the same as the normal undertanding of the word. (For this reason, I try never to use the phrase "is/isn't notable", but rather "meets/doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability). One way of looking at the difference is to interpret it not as "worthy of note" but as "has been noted (by independent commentators in reliable sources). Another way of looking at it is to ask "is there enough independent material published to base an article on?", remembering that the material must have ben published by somebody with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, and that nothing said, written, or published by the subject or their associates contributes to this. ColinFine (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. That's a great way to think about notability and about the issues in a non-judgemental way. Buckland1072 (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After a quick search [1] is the best ref I can find. It certainly by itself is probably not enough for an article. Maungapohatu (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. I haven't really come across Google Books before and you are the second person to have suggested it in as many days, so I'm learning alot. I will do some more research and think about where I might go with it depending on what I find. Grateful for all the help and suggestions received. Buckland1072 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing employer or client page[edit]

Hello there.

I have read through policies and guidelines which pertains to editing employer or client page and the important part which I have noted is that such engagement(with conflict of interest) has to be disclosed, which is fine. However, if I am not getting paid but if the edits are just to help the client (who are paying for other services but not paying for editing the wiki content) but just need help because they are themselves not capable or have knowledge and expertise to edit the page, what can I do in that case? Also, the page edit requires major changes based on recent development surrounding the company - would that be flagged, or such major changes can be done over a short period of time if the language of those edits are not promotional and the references are from valid and authoritative sources? One last question - if the references to 3rd party valid sources are not available, can the reference to company website page be included to justify the edits? I am asking this because there are few pages where the links to company page are present as citation.

Please help. Thank you. Fahadmonibsiddiqui (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fahadmonibsiddiqui: Thanks for asking and trying to be upfront about your connection with the subject. If you have any connection with the subject at all, whether it’s financial or not, you are considered to have a conflict of interest, and in most cases this will impact your ability to correctly edit policy-based articles. You will want to start with a disclosure. I recommend you use the edit request template on the talk page for any changes you would like. You want independent third-party sources for the information. It is usually discouraged to include what companies write about themselves, because it’s considered an unreliable source. Hope this helps. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Fahadmonibsiddiqui. The point to realise is that, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is not up to your client or you to edit an article about them (which is not "their page"), and "helping the client" is of no interest at all to Wikipedia. Wikipedia wants to have a neutral summary of what sources unconnected to the subject have chosen to publish about them (assuming sufficient sources exist). If this "helps" the subject, fine. If it is to the detriment of the subject, also fine. You are permitted to suggest edits, as long as you have disclosed your connection, but uninvolved editors will decide whether or not those edits are suitable; and except for limited uncontroversial factual information like places and dates, they will require sources independent of the company. ColinFine (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could someone put this image from in this draft? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:12, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @BeanieFan11, welcome to the Teahouse. Images that are not freely licensed cannot be used in drafts. When and if the article is approved, and moved to main space, it will then be possible to add the image (by uploading to enWP for local use only). (talk) 19:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is now in mainspace. I am not sure exactly how I would upload the image here, so could someone else do it for me? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You'll need to download it onto your device, and then use the upload wizard to upload it to en-wiki. The it-wiki page seems to say that it's public domain in Italy, but also says that it must not be transferred to Commons, which implies that it does not meet Commons' requirements; but I haven't studied the Italian text to try and understand why not. If it does not, then it will have to be uploaded to en-wiki according to the non-free content criteria, and it is the responsibility of the uploader to ensure that it does meet every one of those criteria, and make the corresponding justification. So you really should upload it yourself. ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BeanieFan11, as I "read" (look at, and guess the meaning of) the text describing its copyright status, I get the impression that its provenance is unknown. Fonte="web"; but when I look in Google for other examples of the same size (or large), all I see are example that have sprouted up in the last day or so, a decade after the file appeared on it:WP (and very likely copied from it:WP). Thus the photograph is a mystery to me: its photographer, its date, its publication (if any) before 2012. I'm not familiar with "fair use" criteria; perhaps somebody else here is. -- Hoary (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BeanieFan11 maybe try starting a conversation with User:Federico_Bardanzellu, the original uploader. The editor is still active on itwiki. Sungodtemple (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is the problem? Federico Bardanzellu (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Here is the original web source. Then I made a photoshop, as it results on itWP. ( My best regards. Federico Bardanzellu (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, the copyright status is a mess. If I understand correctly, the picture is public domain in Italy (non-artistic photograph taken more than 20 years ago, see WP:URAA).
However, is it so in the US, a country which does not apply the rule of the shorter term? We turn to the five-point test of Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Restored_copyrights, answer yes to the first three questions, then the fourth question is whether it was published in the US within 30 days of its publication in Italy. If no, then it’s PD in US too, but it might be yes, especially if the original publication of the photograph was an internet website.
In that case (first publication on the internet) the test tells us to apply US rules. I am going to assume the author or its date of death is unknown, and that the first publication on the internet was in 2003 or later. In that case we are in a yellow square of Wikipedia:Public_domain#Copyright_term_table where the rule is the earlier of 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation which means it is not public domain until ~2060.
All that to say that the current situation is probably correct (Italy-specific PD template on it-wp, non-free documentation on en-wp, nothing uploaded on Commons). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 12:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, in case of first publication on the internet it's applycable the rule of the State where the server is located. --Federico Bardanzellu (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is not correct, or at least not unambiguously correct per the interpretation of US courts. Per Berne Convention#Applicability, a work can have multiple countries of origin, if it is published in multiple countries within 30 days. [2] cites two contradictory rulings. In Moberg v. 33T, the court ruled that posting on a German website did not constitute publication in the US, whereas in Kernel v. Mosley (which cites and analyzes Moberg v. 33T), another court ruled that posting on an Australian website did constitute "simultaneous publication all over the world".
Even if we assumed that Moberg controlled, we do not know what was the first publication of that photograph. It was probably in an Italian-language publication, but it’s hard to be sure that it was on a server within Italy’s borders (or jurisdiction). TigraanClick here for my talk page ("private" contact) 13:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect creation[edit]

I was browsing Wikipedia while logged off, and came across Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company and Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, in related lists. As this seemed like an easy thing to fix, I logged on to try and fix it myself. However, after logging in, I was directed to the Article Wizard, whose instructions would lead me to write an entirely new page (about something already on Wikipedia).

After searching for a bit, I found the Redirect Wizard (which seems to be under the Article Wizard, somehow?) so I used that to submit the redirect for creation.

Is there a less roundabout way for me to have done this, or do I have to pass WP:AFC/R every time? Salosin2009 1 (talk) 20:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apparently the redirect was approved already, but for clarity, the first link used to be a non-existent page. Salosin2009 1 (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Autoconfirmed users can create articles and redirects without going through the AfC process. This requires making 10 edits, which you only reached when you made this Teahouse question – so next time you want to create a redirect, you should be able to do so without going through AfC. (The other criterion for Autoconfirmed status is having had your account for four days, but as you created your account years ago there is no issue there.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability Inquiry[edit]

I'm a new editor in Wikipedia and I would like to create an article of an indvidual. However, I would first like to know if the subject complies with Wikipedia's notability requirements.

The new article would contain information of Christopher Mckee, an executive and owner of a major political risk firm. He has dedicated the majority of his life to political risk assesments, and has participated in important discussions within major forums such as Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist and more. I've found independent sources with information about him, and I would like to know if there's a minimum of sources required. Rcasillas1 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two minimums you must meet: First is notability as Wikipedia defines it, which requires at least three in-depth, non-routine, independent news or scholarly sources with identifiable authors that are subject to rigourous fact-checking. The second is our biographical policy, which requires one such source for every biographical claim the article makes that could POTENTIALLY be challenged for ANY sensible reason. If you cannot meet both minimums, we can't have an article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 21:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rcasillas1: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm going to point out in Jéské Couriano's response that no, three reliable sources aren't required; that is an essay that strongly recommends having three reliable sources to make it easier to review, but by no means is that mandated. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Rcasillas1 Maybe you would be better off trying to write about the International Country Risk Guide, which is mentioned in the lead of the Economics of corruption article, or indeed the PRS Group. It is a lot easier writing (and finding references for) such articles than business people associated with these ventures. On the other hand, you should find something about McKee if you look for reviews of his books in reliable sources. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name of page change[edit]

Someone edited my page and changed the name and some content. I’ve removed the content but how to I change the name back to my page name . Jvee7424 (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you are referring to Team Chick Motorsports, it is not your page. If you wish to discuss changes, the place to do so is on the article's talk page: Talk:Team Chick Motorsports. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:39, 9 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For your removal of content, Jvee7424, you provided the edit summary "Grammar". Simply, that was untrue. Edit summaries should be truthful. -- Hoary (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion started at talk page. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The original name has been restored. The source for the move was vague about what happened. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 06:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book that is selling Wikipedia articles[edit]

I recently stumbled upon this;

This book is almost entirely copied from Wikipedia articles and is actually being sold as a paperback Is this breaking any rules of Wikipedia such as making profits from other people's work here? Pyraminxsolver (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pyraminxsolver: Wikipedia content may be reused for any purpose, including selling it. The only requirement is that there must be attribution. RudolfRed (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Pyraminxsolver and welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia articles can be copied and distributed. There is also the chance that the Wikipedia article copied the book, instead of the other way around. If you think that this is the case, then leave a message on the article's talk page. Thanks and happy editing! 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝 👋❤️ (𝚃𝚊𝚕𝚔🤔) 03:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, 𝙷𝚎𝚕𝚕𝚘𝚑𝚎𝚊𝚛𝚝, the perpetrator of this product copied Wikipedia articles. Its producer https:// [join that up] says about copyright matters: "All Rights Reserved - Standard Copyright License"; but before we complain either to or about "Valrie Plaza", let us apply Hanlon's razor. -- Hoary (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pyraminxsolver You may be interested to read about a case WT:WikiProject_Chemistry/Archive_50#Plagiarism in Elsevier book where a reputable publisher withdrew a book after editors here showed that it had copied large tracts of Wikipedia articles without attribution. In the case of, a "publisher-on-demand" of self-published works I'm not sure of how they would respond, assuming the book does indeed not acknowledge its sourcing. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pyraminxsolver: In addition to what Mike Turnbull said, your example is actually quite uncommon. There are a lot of sites that copy or modify Wikipedia content. A lot of these fail to follow the license (the most common is failing to provide attribution like your example, another example is making a derivative and putting it under something other than the CC BY-SA 3.0.) This has gotten so often that we have a list of sites that copy our content. If you take a quick look, you'll see that a lot are rated 'Low' in compliance (meaning they don't even say it was from Wikipedia at all).
If you really want to solve this, you can send the standard license violation letter to remind them that they need to attribute us. But sometimes it takes a lot of work to get them to comply.
Also, this ANI thread may be of interest. Hope this helps. (Sorry if this is a bit long, but I had a bit too much to say.)
(Note: The Wikimedia Foundation cannot legally resolve these cases in court or something, because the editors, not the Foundation, are the copyright holders. Only the copyright holder can file a lawsuit of infringement, at least in the US.) weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Pitt Ballinger[edit]

I noticed that this was not listed on his page and I am way out of practice when it comes to editing a page

Ballinger, TX was officially named in honor of William Pitt Ballinger, a Galveston attorney and stockholder of the Gulf, Colorado and Santa Fe Gespalder (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. small jars tc 10:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article is confusing and somewhat poorly written. I added one tag but it needs some work. (talk) 10:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tour to Hari dwar[edit]

How to go to Hari Dwar from New Delhi, what is the distance from Hari Dwar to Rishikesh, is there any govt accomodation (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. The Teahouse is for questions concerning Wikipedia itself. You might want to ask about this at the Reference Desk instead. small jars tc 11:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For answers to the first two of your three questions, go to Ride with GPS or one of its numerous rivals. -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article Review[edit]

Hello, somebody have a look at Draft:Heidi Saadiya. Imperfect Boy (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had a look. I'm not convinced that the sources establish that the subject is notable, in Wikipedia's idiosyncratic sense. In your opinion, Imperfect Boy, which three of the sources do most to establish that she's notable? Maproom (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Imperfect Boy deleted the AfC and moved the article to mainspace as Heidi Saadiya. David notMD (talk) 03:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vattakara (film)[edit]

Vattakara (film) it has correct reviews and referance. its detecting my vandalism Monhiroe (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Monhiroe and welcome to the Teahouse. Your question is unclear. There is no vandalism going on at that article; you moved it to main space and DareshMohan subsequently nominated it for deletion based on sourcing concerns. Please do not remove the AfD tag - that will not stop the deletion discussion. Providing sources that demonstrate WP:NFILM is what's needed. Also, please be more careful about accusing others of vandalism. (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okey sure. But reviews and link are there Monhiroe (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Monhiroe, currently there is only one review cited in the article, and I can't find anything about filmistreet either here or here, so I have no idea whether it's a reliable source or not. I'd recommend adding more reviews from sources that are more clearly reliable in order to demonstrate notability. The AfD will likely then close as "keep". (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to make a draft of an article[edit]

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for a few months now, and I wanted to try creating my own. I have read several of the guides Wikipedia has about writing an article, so I think I have a general sense as to what to do. I picked a subject off of the United States Wikiproject requested articles list, so I think the topic should be notable.

Can someone explain the best way to start making a draft? I know that you can use a sandbox, but I don't know how that works. I did make a draft (not in the sandbox), but I want to be able to save it without publishing it yet. I did read various Wikipedia pages about how to do it, but I was overwhelmed because there was so much information, so I'm still pretty confused. Sorry if this is a dumb question, I did try to figure it out myself but I couldn't. A. E. Katz (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are no "dumb questions"...there should be everything you need here Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you! A. E. Katz (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A. E. Katz, don't be afraid of the Publish changes button. It simply saves the edits to that page. So if you're working in your sandbox, for example, Publish changes saves your changes to your sandbox page. It does not "publish" the page to mainspace. Schazjmd (talk) 17:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! So if I'm working in my sandbox, do I just change the sandbox to a draft of the article, or do I make a subpage of the sandbox or something? A. E. Katz (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To work on articles, you can create a page in the Draft workspace or you can create subpages in your user workspace or just work in your sandbox. When the article is complete and you believe it's ready for mainspace, you can move it to its mainspace title. The space where a page exists is indicated in the page title: User:A. E. Katz/my draft article is a user subpage, Draft:my draft article is in the draft workspace, User:A. E. Katz/sandbox/my draft article is a subpage of your sandbox page. For mainspace, the page would be moved to my draft article. (Obviously, I'm just using my draft article as placeholders for the actual title.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, that helps a lot! A. E. Katz (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A. E. Katz: There is also a lot of good information in Help:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! A. E. Katz (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad style[edit]

hello! This is article has bad style:Khuru (sport), thanks. Станислав Савченко (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just added the "This article is in list format but may read better as prose" tag to it, in order to warn others. A. E. Katz (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


how can i restore my page Shijinlal page as draft Monhiroe (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse. Perhaps WP:REFUND may be useful in restoring deleted draft pages. Sarrail (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Link: WP:REFUND. (talk) 17:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with notability for a proposed page[edit]


I'm trying to get a page approved for American Journalist draft:Mark Litke. He's an Emmy and Peabody award winning journalist who covered major events Asia for several decades. The submission was declined because there weren't enough secondary sources to prove notability (winning an Emmy and Peabody isn't notable?). It seems like what they are looking for is press about him? The problem is it seems like he was never interested in getting press, since he was the press, and largely his work is pre-internet so a search doesn't yield much. I sourced his notable alumni profile on UC Berkeley Journalism and proof of his Emmys but that didn't suffice. Any advice on what I need to prove that he's notable, other than direct press about him? He is an influential and accomplished journalist and definitely deserves a page that describes the work he's done. I looked up similar journalists to get ideas and they seem to have a lot less than what I wrote see: George Lewis (journalist). Renee.gholikely (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Renee gholikely: I agree with you that notability is likely met, but biographies of living or recently-departed people also need in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking for every single claim that could potentially be challenged. Mark's newscasts don't help for this a whit; you are likely going to want to find meta-analyses, on- or (more likely) offline. (And yes, we do accept offline sources; you just need to provide enough bibliographical information to look the source up in a library or an archive.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

undisclosed financial stake[edit]

How to solve undisclosed financial stake? Kaarrar (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kaarrar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please visit WP:PAID for instructions on how to declare paid editing(which is not limited to being specifically paid to edit). 331dot (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – Combined related queries. (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please check the article IoE AI how to solove undisclosed financial stake Kaarrar (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kaarrar, see the reply by 331dot above. I have combined your two questions - please carry on the discussion in this section rather than starting a new one (you can use the "reply" button). (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kaarrar: As has been explained to you in the paid editing message on your talk page, you need to put the template {{paid|user=Kaarrar|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}} on your user page User:Kaarrar, not your talk page. Fill in the name of your employer and/or client.
Also, you will need to answer the question about who is the "we" you refer to in one of the comments on your talk page. How many people have access to the Kaarrar account? ~Anachronist (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Piped section links[edit]

Is there a way to simplify a link in this format

[[Page name#Section name|Page name]]

where the displayed text is the same as the page name?

Purplemountainmantalk contribs 21:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Purplemountainman: Welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I'm aware that's the simplest. Pipe tricking doesn't work for section links. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Purplemountainman: @Tenryuu: Personally I like to use Template:Section link to link to sections elegantly. {{section link|Page name|Section name}} renders as Page name § Section name. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anachronist: While I quite like the § character for its design and the template ({{slink}} is a handy shortcut Face-smile.svg), it doesn't fit what the OP is asking for. The template can suppress the page name while displaying the section, but not the other way around. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:31, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mind & Life Institute[edit]

The Mind and Life Institute should be the "Mind & Life Institute"; its website uses the ampersand (even though its URL does not; can URLs include ampersands?). Mind & Life Institute ( At Mind and Life Institute, the title and the name above the picture on the right spell out "and," but the first sentence of the article uses the ampersand. I think that the title and the name above the picture on the right should be changed to an ampersand (it seems incongruous to have the first sentence conflict with the title), but I don't know how to edit those. Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Maurice Magnus. I have moved the article to Mind & Life Institute. Cullen328 (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. And I was able to change it above the picture on the right. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maurice Magnus: To answer your parenthetical question, the ampersand is a reserved character for a URL, to designate a delimeter between variable name=value pair parameters in a URL string; for example see the URL where an ampersand is used to separate the parameters tbm=bks and q=shakespeare. An ampersand cannot be part of a domain name. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cullen328:, :::@Anachronist: I also changed the "and" to an ampersand in the article's references to "Mind and Life Dialogues", because its website has it with ampersands. Thanks for the explanation, Anachronist. Maurice Magnus (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Maurice Magnus: While your query's been answered, you may be interested in reading MOS:AMPERSAND, which allows the retention of the character in proper nouns. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:33, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have taggerd the article for excessive reliance on non-independent sources, and for possible failure of notability (I didn't spend long looking, but I didn't find any substnatial independent sources). ColinFine (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FMR Baguio sources[edit]

I saw that then-article FMR Baguio has restored redirect multiple times due to source issue. I founded two sources there that mentions that stations which is [3] and [4]. On the first source mentioned, FMR Baguio mentions at the line As a result of its franchise expansion for nationwide broadcasting in 2020, it currently airs via Cignal Channel 317 with radio stations in Tacloban (Ormoc, Borongan, Calbayog, Catbalogan) BAGUIO, Cagayan, Occidental Mindoro, Catanduanes, Bacolod, Camiguin, Dipolog, Zamboanga Sibugay, Butuan, Davao del Norte, Iligan, Nabua Camarines Sur, Tumauini Isabela and Nabunturan Davao de Oro. On the second source, FMR Baguio mentions at the line In the pipeline is the launching of FMR stations in BAGUIO, Partido Camarines Sur, Catanduanes, Cagayan Province, Nueva Vizcaya and Dipolog. Please tell me if this two source are good for the article so I can publish it. If not, I will try to find more sources about it and let's see if they pass either WP:GNG or WP:BCAST. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @SeanJ 2007 and welcome to the teahouse! simply stating that it airs and has a station in in baguio is not enough no matter how many sources there are, you need to get significant coverage that focuses on FMR Baguio specifically. what makes FMR Baguio more notable than say, all the other stations that don't have their own separate article? happy editing? 💜  melecie  talk - 04:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Correcting inaccurate information on a wiki page[edit]

I would like to preface this by saying that I am not an editor. However I did notice that there is inaccurate information on a wiki page. The page for KayJay, Kentucky has listed that it is located in the Central time zone. KayJay, Kentucky is located in Knox County in the Southeastern corner of the state making it the EST not CST. I do not know how to go about correcting this section so I thought to reach out here for assistance in getting this updated. Thank you so much. 2603:6011:4:D710:D986:AF74:5167:8598 (talk) 02:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Kayjay, Kentucky
hi ip user! I think I've fixed it. to change details regarding timezones, you can click the infobox in the editor and change the details in the timezone sections (or if you're using source, find the infobox and change the data involving timezones). happy reading and editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:50, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestions with Reorganizing Categories in a List[edit]

Hi, I have been making edits to List of Python software, and I believe that the overall organization of the article could be improved. I was thinking possibly more general categories (i.e. Software written with Python, Libraries & Frameworks, etc.) to subdivide into more specific categories which are currently in the list, though I would like suggestions from here first as this is a reasonably visible article. Bladelores (talk) 03:46, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi @Bladelores and welcome to the teahouse! that could be a great idea! you can try to get feedback from say, the talk page, or at WikiProject Computing, or just bold, revert, discuss. happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 03:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Book ref. template wants URL[edit]

While editing The Big Steal, I'm getting an error message for note # 5 because the book reference template has a field for a URL and I didn't provide one. How do I fix this? (This has happened before.} Pete Best Beatles (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pete Best Beatles: If you remove the access date, that error should go away. See Help:CS1_errors#accessdate_missing_url for more info. RudolfRed (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To clarify, Pete Best Beatles, the access date in a citation template refers to the date that you read a website and verified that it supports the content. So, if you do not provide a link to the website, the template generates an error message. Offline paper sources are fine, but ignore the accessdate parameter. Focus on the bibliographic information about the reference: title, author, publication, publisher, publication date, page number and so on. Cullen328 (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it's the Access date parameter! In the past, an editor fixed the problem and didn't really explain fully what had happened. This then begged the question why the access dateparameter was there in the template to begin with. Why didn't you say you'd have the template people remove that? In answering that question, myself I've sort of gone down a rabbit hole - bear with me. I remember when filling out a bibliography section recently I used that parameter to link each book I added to Google Books (I didn't really know what I was doing, but I was following what had been done in the entry that was already there). Brilliant, instead of removing the parameter like you advise I thought I'd fill it out in order to be complete. But I think the original editor made a mistake. It turns out the author they cite, Ken Annakin, is not the author at all but someone merely quoted in the book. The real author of the book is a William Hare, so I've corrected in the citation in the article (let me know if that was wrong for me to do). But the snippet of the book shown in Google Books that quotes Mr. Annakin doesn't actually support the reference, so all the information in the article based upon that reference should really come out, right? I guess this is the meat and potatoes of Wikipediaing, but as a relative newcomer, this is sort of devastating because I had carefully woven new material into an existing section, adding context and creating something I'm proud of. I'm going to track the physical book down to find the relevant quote. Is it okay to leave the article and Reference section as it is while I do this? Further complication: over at Amazon Ken Annakin is actually listed as a co-author after all. That doesn't really change the situation or the question above, but I notice that the ref. cite template for books doesn't seem to allow for multiple authors. -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To your last point, Pete Best Beatles, {{Cite_book#authors}} works the same way as other key templates, {{cite journal}} and {{cite web}}. They allow multiple authors using (for 2 authors) |last1=Surname1 |first1=Forename1 |last2=Surname2 |first2=Forename2; and so on for more authors. You can also use Vancouver style |vauthors=[a list here] for multiple authors, although I don't like that method for reasons too complicated to discuss here. There are also provisions to cite authors in an edited book and give the name of the editor. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, Pete Best. If the cited source does not support the claim it is supposed to, then ideally the claim should be removed unless another suitable source can be found for it. That is often a lot of work, so an interim solution is to tag it with {{failed verification}}, giving notice to the reader that there is something amiss. Some editors disapprove of such drive-by tagging, but it is an easy amelioration of the situation. ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating an article[edit]


I am creating a wikipedia article for my company. I want to know how can I upload/delete images from my wikipedia page.

I would like an answer specific to the VisualEditor

Thanks. COLABSPK (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, COLABSPK. Do not worry about images right now. That is like worrying about the exterior paint color of a house you want to build without thinking about the foundation, the framing, the roof and the HVAC systems. Your very first step is to make the mandatory Paid editing disclosure. Then read the guideline for editors with a Conflict of interest and comply with it scrupulously. Then read and study Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and ask yourself whether or not your business really meets that guideline which is enforced quite strictly. If you truly believe after all of your reading that your business is notable, then read and study Your first article, and use the Articles for Creation process to draft an article which will be reviewed by an experienced uninvolved editor. Cullen328 (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
hi @COLABSPK and welcome to the Teahouse! before you start writing a page for your company, please read Conflict of interest carefully. writing a new article is very difficult especially for new editors, and writing about topics that you have a connection to is even more difficult and discouraged (even for more experienced editors).
however as for your question in specific, you seem to have uploaded File:COLABS Flagship Location (Site 1).JPG to Wikipedia. please check out Uploading images for a guide on that. if you did not take said image and don't have copyright over it, please tag it for speedy deletion G7, otherwise you can move it to Wikimedia Commons (which does come with a requirement that each image uploaded is under a license that allows free use by anyone including commercial use and derivative creation, however this license is required by most images in Wikipedia). happy editing! 💜  melecie  talk - 06:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template request[edit]

Is there a template for an infobox where only the age is known, but not the year of birth? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 06:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how that could work. Their age can only be calculated and updated correctly if their birth date is known. Shantavira|feed me 08:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then what do I put in the infobox? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 09:44, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vortex3427 There is no requirement for DOB in infoboxes of living people and many will be publicly unknown, so per WP:BLP would be unusable as not reliably sourced. If there is a reliable source that says someone is x years old on a given date in 2022, it is a matter of simple arithmetic to work out in which year (or two years) they were born and the template allows for that. See {{Infobox person}} and {{birth based on age as of date}}. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thanks. I'll use the latter template. — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 11:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second Request[edit]

If any user has requested to create page for second time. So accept or not? Because I have got a request as a suggestion again. [5] PravinGanechari (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If an article was rejected because its subject wasn't notable, then requests from various people to create a new article on the same, non-notable subject do not make the subject notable. (This is my attempt at answering the question that I think you're asking. Though I find your question very hard to understand.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Hoary, A user has requested to create a page for the second time, should I accept the request or not? PravinGanechari (talk) 10:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi PravinGanechari. I seem to remember you asked a similar question before and I'll give a similar answer. We are all volunteers here and we work on what we want to work on. If others make suggestions, perhaps because they see something we've done and believe we might be interested in a similar new topic, then that's fine. Your Talk Page is a good venue for that discussion. You can answer them there after deciding whether you are interested or not. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok PravinGanechari (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing Vincent van Gogh[edit]

I would like to edit this page with the following paragraph, but the system doesn't allow it:

Van Gogh as a source of inspiration[edit]

Over the years, Van Gogh and his life have been a source of inspiration for various cultural expressions. The Flemish writer and visual artist Louis Paul Boon based his novel Abel Gholaerts (1944) on the life of Van Gogh, although he moved the action to Flanders. Various films have been made about the artist's life, including the 1956 film Lust for Life with Kirk Douglas as Vincent van Gogh. Vincent and Theo, a film by Robert Altman, was produced in 1996. In 2009, the IMAX film Van Gogh, een kleurrijk portret was released. Don McLean wrote the famous song Vincent (starry, starry night) about him, based on the painting The Starry Night. In 2009 the film Vincent van Gogh, een zaaier in Etten came into circulation, the director was Vincent Oudendijk. More than 100 painters collaborated on the animation film Loving Vincent (2017), who made a painting in the style of Van Gogh for each frame.

Smi953 (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Where are your reliable sources for that informaton? Shantavira|feed me 08:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smi953 Your editing history shows no contributions for the Vincent van Gogh or related articles. So what do you mean by the system doesn't allow it? There may be a case for adding something in the "Reputation and legacy" section of that article, or more likely within Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, which could do with a lot of improvement. In any event, as Shantavira has indicated, whatever you add must be adequately cited. Mike Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added the reference: [1]

Smi953 (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Vincent van Gogh, Dutch Wikipedia
@Smi953, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference - not any version in any language. It is not considered a reliable source. (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I cannot really understand your reasoning. Though the text is a translation from the Dutch Wikipedia, all hyperlinks in the text are from the English Wikipedia. These hyperlinks, which already exist many years, show that the text is truthfull as to its contents and are the references needed. I'll try to insert the texts in Cultural depictions of Vincent van Gogh, but shall also make a reference to this this page under 'external links', as this is missing.

Smi953 (talk) 16:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Smi953, a link to another Wikipedia page does not belong in external links (since it is not an external link, it is an internal link). It would go either in a "See also" section, which that article currently doesn't have, or as a sublink under one of the headings (possibly Vincent van Gogh#Reputation and legacy, where there's already a link to Posthumous fame of Vincent van Gogh; you could add it as a second link, like the multiple links under the heading Vincent van Gogh#Nuenen and Antwerp (1883–1886)).
As for your other question, a link to a different article on Wikipedia is not a reference. Those articles may contain references to sources which you could then borrow to support the information you're adding. The only exception I'm aware of to "a link does not count as a ref" is in list articles. (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ariel Rojas (weathercaster)[edit]

Hi, I just created the article Ariel Rojas (weathercaster) hours ago, and I am confused if a weathercaster and meteorologist are the sane? Please tell me if they are the same or not. SeanJ 2007 (talk) 08:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A weathercaster presents the weather forecast on t.v. or radio; a meteorologist studies weather patterns, often with the purpose of forecasting them. small jars tc 09:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, SeanJ 2007. A person can be both, but it depends on their education. A meteorologist will have a university degree in meteorology. Cullen328 (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, SeanJ 2007, and welcome to the Teahouse. The biggest problem with Ariel Rojas (weathercaster) is not the title, but the lack of any sources that establish that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The first source is a routine announcement, the next two are the same article, which appers to be based on a press release, and the last is based on an interview. 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.
Unless you are confident of creating an acceptable Wikipedia article on the very first attempt, I strongly recommend that you don't create articles directly in mainspace, but instead create drafts using articles for creation. ColinFine (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, [Copyright][edit] Hello, can you check if the paragraph I inserted is non copyright and eligible for the article. My paragraph starts from Successor. If not, can you tell me what to add to make it eligible. Thanks. Dane Khan (talk) 08:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to the Teahouse, Dane Khan. You look to have written that sentence in your own words, rather than breaching copyright this time. It is a rather speculative comment in the source, so I wonder how relevant it is. You should also be aware that a deletion discussion on this article has been started at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MoonSwatch. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dane Khan, your addition was taken from this (rather vapid) page, which says "© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury Bath BA1 1UA All rights reserved." And you didn't use quotation marks. So yes, you violated copyright. Copyright aside, your addition suggests that you're deluded about Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog; therefore "now" and "last month" are meaningless. And single-equals-sign headers, like your (misspelt) "=Succesor=", have no place within articles. So, back to your question. Assume that anything you find anywhere is copyright, unless you have excellent reason to decide otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 10:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi , if we assume everything is copyrighted then how do we right from the sources or websites . Due to this , how do we then write something on Wikipedia if ever source is copyrighted. I am really confused and really needs some tips . Thanks . Dane Khan (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You find a reliable source, Dane Khan, you digest what it says, and in your own words you summarize what's useful for your purpose. You then attribute it, not just with a bare URL but also with the author's name (or authors' names), page title, website title, etc. Within your summary, if it's really necessary to quote something, you quote it, in quotation marks "    ". -- Hoary (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Dane Khan. Please see Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources. There's also a lot of information at Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia. Shantavira|feed me 10:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) @Dane Khan Knowledge and information is not copyrighted. But the form of words used by any publisher to express that knowledge is a product of their skills at using the English language. Unless explicitly released, that form of words is their copyright. Wikipedia requires every editor to put knowledge obtained from published sources into their own words. It takes time and effort to put stuff into your own words, and it requires you reading and understanding the sources. Having done that, you could even put the source to one side an imagine speaking that information out loud to a nearby friend. Those would be your words. Imagine if the Bible were copyrighted. You might want to explain what was reported in the Bible in your own words. Here's a quick attempt to put the first 5 verses of the Bible into my own form of words:
BIBLE TEXT: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
MY WORDS: The earth and heaven were both made by God at the very start of things. The earth had no structure, and there was nothing there. The Spirit of God moved above the surface of the deep oceans, which were completely dark at that time. He then said: “Let there be light”. The world suddenly became bright, which God liked, and he gave the name "night" to the darkness and he gave the name "day" to the light. That was the first day, and between the day and the night there was a morning and an evening.
Now, I have still been guilty of a degree of WP:PARAPHRASE by following the chronological events described, but I think in that context it would not be seen as too bad. Changing the order of information presented is often important to do, but at times like this there is a risk of confusing the story too much. Does that help? Nick Moyes (talk) 11:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that aims to use multiple sources for each part of an article. Look at how the Genesis creation narrative article deals with a discussion of what Nick has just mentioned. It combines direct quotes with careful rewording of what reliable sources say about the topic so that the result is really informative for an interested reader. That's the ambition which you need to have as an editor here, Dane Khan. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with formatting a Wikitable[edit]

Hello, I am trying to edit the list of Finance Ministers on this page here:

Minister of Finance (Sri Lanka)

The current Finance Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe is also the current President of Sri Lanka, and Finance Ministers are appointed by the President. I am trying to break up the box of the Governmemt column for him so it is split between Rajapaksa of the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna party and Wickremesinghe of the United National Party. I was partially successfull on my Sandbox here, but I can't seem to get the formatting right:

User:ScottishNardualElf/sandbox ScottishNardualElf (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone ahead and fixed the formatting in your sandbox, but you almost had it. All that was left was to put Ranil Wickremesinghe and his party color on a new row (If you have a row with rowspan defined cells, followed by a partial row, the software tries to fit them together neatly), and extend the right-most column down one more row. WelpThatWorked (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you @WelpThatWorked! Pretty simple in the end, thank you for that. ScottishNardualElf (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My Article[edit]

ive been trying to make a article about a video game yet its been declined even though its perfect material Jartfart (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Jartfart. You need to provide properly formatted references to independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the game. Your current draft is not anywhere close to being acceptable. Read and study Your first article. Cullen328 (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im new to editing btw, and i dont understand it much. If you could give me any links or forums or something that can help, then thanks a ton
Also, please elaborate on how its not close to being acceptable please and thanks Jartfart (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Slope Game
(edit conflict) I think you need more references to convince the reviewers that the game is notable enough for its own article. I opened up your four references, and the first one is an advertisement to buy the domain. Not too sure, but the second one looks like user-generated content. The third may be reliable, but I can't tell. The fourth looks like a primary source. So you should need more references (some essay I read somewhere called for three secondary ones.) A web search may turn up something interesting. Hope this helps. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 15:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can i add the refrences as primary sources Jartfart (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Primary sources are not going to help you for notability as Wikipedia defines it. We're looking for in-depth, non-routine, independent news/scholarly sources written by identifiable authors and subjected to rigourous fact-checking. If those sources don't exist at this time, then we cannot have an article yet. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 15:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do not resumbit until you learn how to reference properly (see Help:Referencing for beginners). The game's website and the owning company's website are primary, and so do not establish notability. This draft is either WP:TOOSOON or else about a game so obscure that no one has written about it. David notMD (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editing semi-protected article[edit]

How can I edit semi-protected articles? Rrthakur22 (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Rrthakur22 and welcome to the Teahouse! Semi-protected articles can be edited only by autoconfirmed accounts, or accounts that are at least four days old and have made at least ten edits to Wikipedia. Please click the two links if you wish to find out more. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
16:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks @Your Power. I fulfill both the conditions (4 days old and 10 edits). I hope now I can edit semi-protected articles. Rrthakur22 (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, Rrthakur22. You are autoconfirmed. You can edit semi-protected articles as long as you follow the Policies and guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Cullen328 probably meant WP:PAG instead of EP:PAG.) weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 16:42, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I corrected my typo. Cullen328 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rrthakur22 What you have on your User page verges on webpage like content, which is not allowed. See WP:UP for what is and is not appropriate for User pages. David notMD (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image Licensing[edit]

okay so there's this page Ramesh Tawadkar There's a nomination for deletion which I don't agree.

I need an admin to check thr image and if it's okay to be posted with GODL-India license Rejoy2003 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2022 (UTC) You're everywhere, anyways imma check on "commons" cuz your link you sent ain't workin' Rejoy2003 (talk)Reply[reply]

As you were told on IRC this is something that needs to be done Commons-side as the image is on Commons. English Wikipedia admins have no powers on Commons. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 16:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're everywhere, anyways imma check on "commons" cuz your link you sent ain't workin' Rejoy2003 (talk)

Rejoy2003 According to the tag on the file in Commons, that license is only applicable to some works of the central government of India, and not to works by the Goa state assembly, see COM:TAG India, so I don't think it can be retained, irrespective of what happens to the article itself. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rejoy2003: If the link you have doesn't work, the link to the discussion is here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Shri-Ramesh-Tawadkar.jpg. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Radio Reloj[edit]

I lived in Barcelona in 1969 and 1970. I knew a woman who was a broadcaster for Radio Reloj, a station that Wikipedia currently says had only been in Cuba and is Cuba-based. I am quite certain that there was one in Spain, maybe not broadcasting out of Barcelona. Perhaps Madrid. Any clarification anyone has would be greatly appreciated. Thanks 2603:8090:1800:5801:ADF8:EFC7:314D:125A (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are possibly correct, IP editor, (see this link) but I think they just rebroadcast the Cuban station, so I'm not sure whether this has any relevance to our article Radio Reloj. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If my article was moved to Draftspace, shouldn't the language that I copied from also be moved?[edit]

You see, I had made a translated page from Russian to English, and it got moved to draftspace. I added every cite there and it was still moved. Therefore, shouldn't the russian version be moved to Draftspace as well? Kxeon (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kxeon: Each language Wikipedia is different and operates by different rules. Something that is acceptable for main space on a foreign language Wikipedia may not be acceptable on the English Wikipedia, because the English Wikipedia has more stringent criteria for inclusion than other language Wikipedias.
If you are referring to Draft:Vitaly Pishchenko, it violates multiple guidelines: WP:CREATIVE, WP:BLP, and WP:GNG. See Wikipedia:Golden rule for an overview of what is required for main space articles here. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And on top of all that, @Kxeon, I'm afraid there's one more thing - you didn't attribute your translation. Please take a look at Help:Translation. (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other thing to say is, you may well be right. Many (probably all) Wikipedias - including English Wikipedia - have many many substandard articles which, if they were presented for review in en-wiki today, would not be accepted. Unfortunately, few editors are interested in spending the time going through them improving or deleting them. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And while I'm at it, what about the Ukrainian version? That has no cites AT ALL. Shouldn't that be deleted? Or is the rule just missing from the Ukrainian wikipedia entirely? Kxeon (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Kxeon: Same situation. You can try to nominate it for deletion there if you want, and see what happens. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how would I do that??? Kxeon (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kxeon, English language Teahouse hosts cannot provide detailed instructions about Ukrainian Wikipedia. You will have to read their deletion policies and procedures. Cullen328 (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's up with this article?[edit]

Was browsing Wikipedia, and I came across this article: Dirty War - it seems to have a bad problem with its infobox formatting, leading to a messed-up display. I'm not any expert in editing or fixing complex infoboxes, but I was wondering if anybody knew how to fix this display. It's such an important article for political/historical reasons that it seems strange to have been left like this. PetSematary182 (talk) 00:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

fixed, an ip screwed it up. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:20, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]