Jump to content

Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1042

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1035←Archive 1040Archive 1041Archive 1042Archive 1043Archive 1044Archive 1045

Who adds wikiproject templates to the talk page of a new article?

Hello. After a new article is published, someone will go to its talk page and assign it some wikiproject templates, along with a rating on quality and importance. Who should take that step? Should the editor who published the article add the templates and keep the importance and quality blank so another editor can fill those blanks? Or should s/he do nothing and wait for some other editor to do all of it? I have tried to find guidance in wikipedia's policies, without luck. If someone has a sense of best practices on this, I'd be glad to know. Thank you.Al83tito (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Al83tito, and Happy New Year! In essence - you can; anyone can! Many people (including me) create articles and fail to add all the relevant WikiProject templates to those articles. Other editors discover the new articles - perhaps at New Page Patrol, and they add them. But you or anyone can add one or more relevant WikiProject templates, and you can grade them, too. I use a tool called RATER which helps me add either a quality assessment score, an importance score or a WikiProject Template (or all three) to them. Generally, I leave the quality assessment of pages I've created to other people, though I might return after 12 months or more and add one myself if I felt the article needed it.  You certainly don't need to be a member of any WikiProject to do that. In fact quite a few WikiProjects are virtually inactive nowadays. But that doesn't mean the templates aren't of use, as they help populate the Project's automatically updated article table, and sometimes even the 'Hot Articles' section of that Project, which is really useful in helping give people an idea of which pages are currently being worked on. If any of this doesn't make sense, just ask, and I'll try and explain further. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nick Moyes, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply. And happy new year to you as well! I think that is what I needed to know for now. Thank you.Al83tito (talk) 11:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

07:45:24, 2 January 2020 review of submission by Brand My Bizness

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I am working on an article about Bol-ETV an app featurinf Indian Regional Cinema: Draft:Bol-ETV. I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Could you please help me to see if something is missing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brand My Bizness (talk • contribs) 07:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Brand My Bizness:, and welcome to the Teahouse. I cannot access ref #4, but in your Draft:Bol-ETV ref #1 is a short mention, ref #2 is a blatant interview-based advertorial and ref #3 is self-published. Sources have to be independent and reliable and in-depth to establish notability - the current sources are insufficient. Also, please read WP:COI and WP:PAID - your username seems to indicate paid editing (or is misleading at best). If you follow the blue links on top of your draft, you'll find additional guidelines and information about notability and sourcing. GermanJoe (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I see the draft is about a company providing a service that does not yet exist. Unsurprisingly, its creator has failed to find evidence that the company is notable. I suggest abandoning the draft for now, and waiting until some months after the service has been launched; then, maybe there will be independent published sources that establish its notability. Maproom (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

USING THE RIGHT WORD

Consider two needed changes: learn the difference between may and might. May is permissive and might is likely. About 90 percent don't know and use the ignorant word.

In excess of is NOT 'OVER' that's above. 'More than' is the correct usage; proving that 90 percent of Americans are happy in their ignorance. They couldn't pass a sixth grade grammar test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:BFC0:49:6439:F2EB:A549:8DCB (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you have a question about editing Wikipedia? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page

Hi, have written two new pages (Thomas Skinner and The Fluffy Pillow Company) but these are not live yet. Can someone check and help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rochrozario (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy: The editor has put the content on their own User page: User:Rochrozario. David notMD (talk) 12:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The material was not appropriate for your user page, so I've moved it to User:Rochrozario/sandbox. In its current state the material is certainly not suitable for Wikipedia articles. You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and in particular you need to understand the requirements for notability. I will put some further useful links in a welcome message on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Rochrozario: you have a conflict of interest. Another editor has asked you to read the relevant COI articles and declare your COI, yet you have not done so. Please read carefully this material, as well as the other messages on your Talk page.

Template for Europeana created please give some feedback

I have

- Salgo60 (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and thanks in advance for any help.

I have been trying to add an External Link to my new bibliography of J.L. Carr to the page on him in Wikipedia, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Carr

The bibliography is here:

https://www.threeisacollection.org/carr/carrindex.html

and it works if you click on it.

But when I add this as a direct link as:

and I click on the link to test it, I get a 404 Not Found message, as you will if you click on this link.

If I give the host website instead

then it opens.

Why does this happen and how can I add a direct link to the bibliography page? If it’s a fault on the external site, I can edit it if I know what to do.

Thanks Ah1954 (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Try it as Bibliography of J.L.Carr (without the slant after the .html). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Ah1954: I suspect the reason is that in the example you give above of the link that doesn't work, you have a trailing / at the end. This should not be used after a direct reference like .html. I have copy pasted the exact link you used above, but removed the / here, and I believe this will now work Bibliography of J.L.Carr Hugsyrup 13:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
... and when you want to link from one Wikipedia page to another, it is better to use a wikilink like J. L. Carr, rather than a url such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._L._Carr which you used in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. So simple. I thought it was correct to end a link with a /. Now I know. Ah1954 (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

I represent Global Legal Group, a London publisher that produces the International Comparative Legal Guides [1] series of comparative law books, which are published in print and online. Our online resources are completely free to access withour restriction or payment/login.

Our guides cover 55 areas of law, with each guide split into country chapters, which are all written by leading, reputable legal practitioners and are used by legal professionals worldwide as a source of guidance on cross-border legal issues.

Our publications are already referred to in a number of Wikipedia articles:

We and our expert contributors are strong supporters of providing free and open access to our material, especially to academic researchers and the public at large, and we would very much like to add references to it on the Wikipedia pages covering our areas of law, which would give users a gateway to our resources on many individual jurisdictions, as well as general chapters giving detailed analysis and information on specific aspects of the practice area in question.

Before we proceed with any editing, however, we would appreciate your advice on the best practice in doing this, as we are very aware that Wikipedia has high standards as to sources. Our specific questions are:

1. Can we add our publications with their ISBN numbers to the publications and/or further reading sections?

2. Can we create entries referring to specific jurisdictions, using our publications' content as the source? (again, we are not the providers of the content, our legal practitioners are)

3. Last year we attempted to create a company page describing our publications, but it was deleted due to lack of notability. If our publications are acceptable as a reputable source, does this mean that our organization is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia?

Thank you very much in advance for your assistance. FSALegal (talk) 14:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.iclg.com
Before you make any edits you need to make the mandatory declaration regarding paid editing, and you should also read the advice regarding conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that Wikipedia does not have "company pages"; it has articles about companies that meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable company as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The mere fact that you make publications that are cited here does not make your company notable. In addition you would have a conflict of interest in writing about your company here(aside from the mandatory paid editing disclosure already mentioned). If your company merits an article, you shouldn't be the one to write it. 331dot (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
And, addressing your other questions, FSALegal, "which would give users a gateway to our resources" is a clear example of promotion, which is forbidden in Wikipedia. It might be possible to refer to your publications from Wikipedia articles, but only if they meet the quite strict conditions in external links. But in any case you should not be the one who adds them, as that is COI. You may make suggestions at the talk pages of the relevant articles, and if you attach the template {{edit request}} an uninvolved editor will look at the suggestion and decide what to do with it.
Finally, I'm afraid your user name is not acceptable, as it implies that the account is editing on behalf of an organisation (as in fact it is): you need to change it, or to abandon it and create a new personal account for each person editing. See WP:Usernames. --ColinFine (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating Article Of Kiranraj K

Hi I tried to write an article about a living person, Kiranraj K. He is a Indian film director. While creating I came to know that the article is already deleted. The reason which is mentioned is (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiranraj K)

  1. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject also no evidence to support his work in any of the film listed in the article.
  2. Can be allowed when he directs some feature films. Directing non notable short-films does not confer any notability.


At present search result shows he has directed a movie which is released and another one is shooting is going on. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Can someone check and help to complete the article?
ShramanJain (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@ShramanJain: the fact that the article has already been deleted does not preclude you re-creating it if you can find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. The fact that he is directing or has directed films is not directly relevant although if they are well-known films with plenty of independent reviews, and there are reliable sources to show that he was the director, that might also help.
Because this article has previously been deleted, I strongly suggest that you recreate it only via the articles for creation process. This will create a draft first, where you can work on it with less chance of it being immediately deleted, and then when you are ready you can submit it to be reviewed by an experienced editor before moving to the main article space. Hugsyrup 16:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

List of contributions

In what seems to be a list of my contributions to editing, there seems to be a few missing.

Odonanmarg (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Odonanmarg: you currently have 17 contributions, so far I can view all 17 of them. Please explain more. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 17:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto - a bunch of edits from 2013. Have you been editing more recently but not logged in to your account? David notMD (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

submit an article request for Mutu Certification International

help me Hello, we are from PT. Mutuagung Lestari wants to submit an article request for Mutu Certification International. Thank you --Mutuagunglestari (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mutuagunglestari I see that you have already started a draft on such an article at User:Mutuagunglestari/sandbox In order to be approved, such a draft wpould need to cite (and be largely based on) multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the company in some detail. Please follow all these links, and also read our guideline on the notability of companies, our policy on notability, our policy on advertising and promotion and our guideline on conflict of interest (COI). It would appear that you have a COI with respect to this topic, please be careful to conform to the COI guideline.
You write above that we are from PT. Mutuagung .... Who are "we" please? Each Wikipedia account must be for one and only one person. Is "Mutuagung Lestari" an individual" or the company as an entity?
Also, if you are editing as part of your job responsibility, you come under the scope of our policy on paid editing and must promptly disclose your connection as described in that policy. Failure to do so is grounds for being blocked from editing without further discussion. If you are not a paid editor, please indicate this clearly. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
You need to read the criteria at WP:Notability (organizations and companies). Also you are not permitted to have an account named for the company (see WP:CORPNAME); each individual editor must have his/her own account, and if editing on behalf of the company must make the mandatory declaration of paid editing and must understand about conflict of interest. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yess company as an entity DESiegel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyaanakbangsa (talk • contribs) 13:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The listing for Don Larson has an error.

The report on Don Larson states, "Larsen died on January 1, 2020, from esophageal cancer.[37] He was the final surviving member of the 1956 World Series game between the Yankees and Brooklyn Dodgers, after Yogi Berra passed away on September 22, 2015, also aged 90 at the time.". This is not accurate. Whitey Ford is still alive, and was on the team.

From Wilipedia report on Whitey Ford, " World Series and All-Star Games Ford's status on the Yankees was underscored by the World Series. Ford was New York's Game One pitcher in 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964. He is the only pitcher to start four consecutive Game Ones, a streak he reached twice. In the 1960 World Series against the Pittsburgh Pirates, Stengel altered this strategy by holding Ford back until game three, a decision that angered Ford. The Yankees' ace won both his starts in Games Three and Six with complete-game shutouts, but was then unavailable to relieve in the last game of a Yankees loss, the Pirates winning the game—and the Series with it—on Bill Mazeroski's walk-off home run in the bottom of the ninth. Ford always felt that had he been able to appear in three of the games instead of just two, the Yankees would have won.

For his career, Ford had 10 World Series victories, more than any other pitcher. Ford also leads all starters in World Series losses (8) and starts (22), as well as innings, hits, walks, and strikeouts. In 1961, he broke Babe Ruth's World Series record of ​29 2⁄3 consecutive scoreless innings. The record would eventually reach ​33 2⁄3, although MLB rule makers retroactively reduced the record to 33 innings since Ford did not complete a full inning before allowing the streak-ending run. It is still a World Series record, although Mariano Rivera broke it as a postseason record in 2000.[6] Ford won the 1961 World Series MVP. In addition to Yankee Stadium, Ford also pitched World Series games in seven other stadiums:

Ebbets Field (1953 and 1956) Milwaukee County Stadium (1957 and 1958) Forbes Field (1960) Crosley Field (1961) Candlestick Park (1962) Dodger Stadium (1963) Sportsman's Park (1964) Ford appeared on eight AL All-Star teams between 1954 and 1964. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.59.141.60 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I have removed the offending sentence, which was unsourced. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
According to New York Times he is dead. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Ruslik0, I think the OP's point was that he was not the final surviving member of the 1956 World Series game..., because another member of team who played that game (Whitey Ford) is still alive. GirthSummit (blether) 19:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Whitey Ford was on that team but could not possibly have pitched in that particular game. Since Larsen threw a perfect game, he was the only Yankee pitcher who played that day. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I support the change made by David Biddulph, but I wonder if the original wording "the 1956 World Series game" represented a clumsy attempt to refer to Larsen being the last survivor of Game 5 of the 1956 World Series. As the only perfect game in WS history, Game 5 is one of the most well-known games in baseball history, and it does look to me like Larsen was the last living participant from that game. However, I don't see any significant coverage in RSs that refers to Larsen that way. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Local Havana map in Template:Infobox building

Have asked this question but keeps eluding me. Local map shows on some pages; e.g. Instituto Técnico Militar, but refuses to show in a recent page: La Alameda de Paula, Havana or Colegio Nacional de Arquitectos de Cuba. Someone suggested it is the map type (Cuba) which provides the country map, but I am looking for the local, Havana street map as in FOCSA Building or Iglesia de San Francisco de Paula, Havana which should show from the coodinates but does not work consistently; have tried different modes and placement of coordinates. Have been trying to solve this little problem for about a year...thank you very much in advance!! ovA_165443 (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: That map shows up in articles (when it does show up) because the Wikidata items for the topics contain coordinates and therefore an OpenStreetMap map showing the location. No map displays in La Alameda de Paula, Havana because the article apparently does not have a corresponding Wikidata item, and no map displays in Colegio Nacional de Arquitectos de Cuba because the corresponding Wikidata item lacks coordinates. Deor (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
After having fun with various (failing) experiments, the issue is documented in Template:Infobox building#Mapframe maps. I've updated WikiData d:Q5687504 for this article, just add the coords there. –84.46.53.250 (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Ryan PPRHA. Irish Artists

Is it possible that Thomas Ryan PPRHA could be included in the list of Irish artists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.106.47 (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. I say the following without knowing who the person you speak of is. List articles are for listing members of that list that merit a Wikipedia article(ideally the article should already exist), not for listing every possible member of the list. If this person meets the definition of a notable artist as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, an article can be written. 331dot (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Can someone help User:Jeffrey Knisbacher?

This is seemingly an older individual who recently had an AfC declined. For reasons unknown to me, he found my username/email address and emailed me privately at length. This is not the kind of work I do. I am an unsure if he understands talk page norms. If someone would take up the case, I could forward the email he provided, but I don't think its appropriate to post here in full due to minor private information. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

The proposed article already exists in several language versions: ru:Оринин. I think that it would be better to just to translate one of them. Ruslik_Zero 18:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
West.andrew.g, hi Andrew - I'd be happy to offer assistance if you like. My e-mail address has changed since we last corresponded, I'll drop you a note from my current address. Feel free to redact anything that you don't feel comfortable passing on. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Emailed. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Input on newly created article

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I just submitted an article on an important collector of surrealist art who passed away last week: Draft:Rosalind Gersten Jacobs. Although I have edited a number of other pages, this is only the third page I have created. I have attempted to insure that it meets Wikipedia's standards and rules. Could you please help me to see if something is missing or if I may improve this article more while it is waiting for being evaluated? The subject of this entry is very timely and I am hoping to expedite the review process as much as possible. Apropos of which, is there anyway to establish categories for a queue that would immediately identify posts for editors looking for subject matter meeting their particular expertise. It seems to me that might be a useful way to put things into specific pipelines in a way that might facilitate the review processGaw54 (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC). Thanks in advance for any feedback.

Hi, Gaw54. Your draft is cued for review, but it might take some time. I personally would not review it, as it has many sources I cannot verify (doesn't make them unacceptable, just more difficult to review). Some things you can do while you wait: Bring your draft into compliance with WP:MOSHEADERS, format all your citations, try to find some weblinks for the unlinked citations (I'd think the NYT should be available) and provide quotes from your unlinked sources that can illustrate how they are supporting notability. Anything you do to make notability more obvious will increase both the chances of approval and also likely the speed. John from Idegon (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Gaw54 - I took a look and made some minor changes. Someone else commented that there should be more sourcing for some of the content - much of it is unsourced. I didn't see an obituary written by the NY Time's staff but did see this, which was submitted by a friend or family member to the classified section and is therefor not as reliable [[2]]. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Stubs that have only one or two references, to make it eaiser to understand the process

Can you suggest stubs that have only one or two well made references to sources of information in an external Web page? Over the years I more or less mastered the Wiki markup language by looking at the source of pages while editing pages. However I've never managed to grasp online citations.

Take the page that I want to edit 500 Place D'Armes. It has only six citations but they're too much for me to understand how it works. I look at the sources and I see a jumble of codes. Hence my search for stubs with one or two references only.

--AlainV (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

AlainV, I personally use the WP:Visual Editor to deal with references. It makes it a whole lot easier; theres a GUI that automatically makes and tracks sources. That's how I deal with articles with 30+ references that might be cited over a 100 times. I believe Wikipedia:ProveIt can also be used to deal with references in the source editor. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
AlainV, have you tried using the tool described here?: Help:Referencing_for_beginners#Using_refToolbar. There's a field for url with an autofill button which often helps quite a bit. You can also try WP:REFILL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
AlainV any of the above techniques may help in dealing with citations. Try reading Referencing for Beginners for further explanations. But as long as you can follow the point of the citations in the article as displayed, and follow links to those online, you should be OK. If you want to add a new citation, add a minimal one with a url and a title. As long as you can find the source to an existing cite, you will be able to see what it does or does not support. Just leave it alone or if it is no longer relevant after your edits, remove it totally. (If it doesn't seem to support what it is used for, add {{fv}}.) No need to get into the details of cite formatting if you don't choose to -- others can and will handle that. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't know of any list specifically of stubs with only one or two citations, by the way. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The Marlowe Papers has 4, I used the reftoolbar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing Article Titles

I'm new to editing Wikipedia and noticed that the editor does not allow me to insert a suggested change of title.

Can you tell me how to do this or direct me to the appropriate information page? Thanks, Dwarner201 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Dwarner201, welcome! See WP:MOVE and WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating a Biography Page for my Father

Dear Wikigurus, My Father (Air Commodore KC Kuruvilla) is a retired fighter pilot, war veteran, POW survivor and recipient of the Vir Chakra gallantry award of the Indian Air Force. He turns 75 next month and as a milestone celebration present, i wanted to gift him a biography page on Wikipedia.

I am working on gathering facts and info from various sources at the moment and while i have heavily relied on Wikipedia for years, I have never created or contributed towards a page/article.

I have been reading the guidelines and trying to find a template for Military personnel to work with but would also want to detail his early childhood and post Defense life.

Any help I can get for this behemoth project will be amazing and utterly appreciated. Most gratefully, Sarah Kuruvilla — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsarahk (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah, and welcome to the Teahouse. Congratulations to your father, and I appreciate your wish to give him a special present. However, I earnestly counsel you not to do this, for a whole host of reasons.
  1. Writing a new article is one of the hardest tasks in Wikipedia. New users who try it before they have learnt quite a lot about how Wikipedia works often have a frustrating time.
  2. As his daughter, you are likely to find it difficult to write with the required degree of neutrality, because of your conflict of interest. If you go ahead, your work will get closely inspected for this reason.
  3. Wikipedia is created and administered by volunteers, which means that it is not generally possible to guarantee that an article will be incorporated into the encyclopaedia by any particular date.
  4. However gallant and successful your father is, that does not necessarily mean that he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability (which are mostly not about what the person has done, but about what has been written about the person by people unconnected with him). If you cannot find the reliable independent published sources that establish his notability, and cite them in the article, then the article is likely to be deleted. This may cause disappointment and embarrassment for you and for him.
  5. An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Neither you nor your father will have any control over the content of the article: once it is accepted, you will be limited to suggesting changes.
Given all this, I suggest you look for another way to honour your father. If you would like to get involved in creating Wikipedia, that would be great; but please start with a different subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nsarahk. Might I suggest that the best way to make something online and lasting for your father is to create a website that only you can control? Then you can upload your own family photos and other things that Wikipedia cannot accept. I might suggest that Google's 'Blogger' is a very good free resource, which will not suddenly disappear, as a website would if it's annual subscription were not paid for. And you can give it any appearance, or say anything that you want. That having been said, I have taken the liberty of adding your father's name and a reliable reference to the list of recipients of Vir Chakra, which you can see on that page. With respect to you and your father, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I would be less confident about Blogger Blogspot, having found plenty of dead links thereto. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Trying to publish my first edit

Hello,

I did about an hour worth of work and I’m trying to publish my first edit. Instead of publishing, the page keeps refreshing every time I click publish. I wrote a summary of the changes and keep writing the CAPTCHA code too. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushini (talk • contribs) 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bushini: What page were you trying to edit? What kind of edit were you trying to make? (Do not post the entire article, just the name and a description of what you were trying to change). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Clear your cache, then you have to re-add the content (or just copy and paste it) and you may need to log back in. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am trying to edit the Dirty War page. I saw incorrect and highly biased info on there, so I removed a small amount and added content with sources. I logged out and logged back in and it didn’t fix the issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushini (talk • contribs)

@Bushini: I'm not seeing anything in the filter logs. What is the text on the button you're clicking? Describe every single step you're taking. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It’s intimidating.

I just want to make edits of a short nature - typos, syntax, grammar, missing words, etc. I am having trouble just posting this message however. It is quite intimidating.

Odonanmarg (talk) 16:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Odonanmarg: Welcome to The Teahouse! A lot of users find the interface intimidating to begin with, but it's actually quite easy to learn, and you seem to have successfully posted the message you wanted to post, so that's a start at least! Did you have a specific question that we can answer? Hugsyrup 16:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Odonanmarg: Try the WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE learning game to get familiar with editing Wikipedia. Then hop over to WP:TYPO to get hints and tips for finding and fixing typos and join the team if you are so inclined. RudolfRed (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Odonanmarg: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to contribute. A couple of things I'd like to emphasize are to please use edit summaries so people who review edits can understand your reasoning (even if it's just "sp" (spelling) or "punct" (punct)), and use the "minor edit" checkbox carefully, according to WP:MINOR. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to link the Tok Pisin Wikipedia version of ישראל. to English Wikipedia, which is of the same name, but I can't do so. Instead, I get an error message that says .il already exists on English Wikipedia. What I'm trying to do is add a list of additional languages to the Tok Pisin Wikipedia version of ישראל.. The same also applies to every other page with an internationalized domain name I've tried, except for .бг. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childishbeat (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Would adding [[en:Wikipedia:.il]] to the page accomplish what you are trying to do? eπ/💬 23:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Childishbeat. and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid I don't understand what you are trying to do. tpi:Israel is already linked to en:Israel via Wikidata (d:Q801) as it should be. en:ישראל is only a redirect page, and shouldn't be linked to other Wikipedias. --ColinFine (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
I decided to make the Tok Pisin Wikipedia article for .il describe ישראל. instead and make the Tok Pisin Wikipedia article for ישראל. a redirect to the Tok Pisin Wikipedia article for .il instead. Childishbeat (talk) 07:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Childishbeat: As far as I can see, there are corresponding English and Tok Pisin articles en:Israel & tpi:Israel, linked to one another in 'languages' panel via WikiData; there are also, similarly linked, en:.il & tpi:.il. Withing both languages those pages link to one another, too (i.e., Israel to .il and back).
There also exist redirects: tpi:ישראל. → tpi:.il in Tok Pisin and en:ישראל. → en:.il, en:.ישראל → en:.il in English, as well as multiple en redirects to Israel, two of them being en:ישראל and en:יִשְׂרָאֵל.
Article pages ('Israel' and '.il') are correctly linked across languages, redirects are not – and should not. --CiaPan (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Requesting support to get my first article accepted

Draft:Beryl Bernay

Hello Teahouse community, I am brand new to Wikipedia and my first article (a BLP) was rejected due to lack of a NPOV and reliable sources.

Questions/Requests: 1) Though I have reworked it to edit out peacock language and turn the tone into a NPOV, I request other opinions and/or editing. 2) Would archives.org be considered a reliable source? 3) All other comments welcome.

Thank you Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Carol Berney Gonzalez, if you mean https://archive.org, then you would use {{citation}} or {{cite web}} adding the original (now offline) website to the url= parameter and the archive.org url to the archive-url= parameter. You should also be using {{citation}}/{{cite web}} for all web citations. If you are using the VisualEditor or the 2017 wikitext editor, you can use the "cite" button in the toolbar at the top to automatically or manually add a citation using the proper templates. The "cite" button also allows you to reuse citations you previously used in the article.– BrandonXLF (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Carol Berney Gonzalez, I added some comments on the draft page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: Also see related #Editing assistance request: Draft:Beryl Bernay —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing assistance request: Draft:Beryl Bernay

This is a BLP, my first article. It was rejected. After NPOV changes, I request editorial support before resubmitting for review, specifically:

1) Does this current version doesn't meet NPOV standards? If not, please edit
2) Does archive.org count as a reliable source?
3) Any suggestions for reliable sources? (much material referred to is non-digitalized or copyright protected).

thanks for your time! Carol Berney Gonzalez (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Carol Barney Gonzalez and Thanks for the question! At a glance, it looks to me like the article meets NPOV, although I'm no great authority on that. You can read this for more information on NPOV. Archive.com is not a reliable source unfortunately, sorry. You can find reliable sources here, although it isn't a comprehensive it should be sufficient. Thanks, Puddleglum 2.0 19:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Carol Barney Gonzalez. It doesn't matter if the sources are not online or copyright: all that is required is that they are reliably published. If they are unpublished documents, then they may never be used as sources; but if they have been published by a reputable publisher, and so are in principle obtainable by anybody (eg through a major library), they can be cited. --ColinFine (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't reject the draft. I declined it. The difference is that the author of a declined draft can edit it and resubmit it. I had two issues with the draft. The first was its tone, which seemed to me to be non-neutral. (If other editors disagree, I will defer to their opinions.) The second was the use of unreliable sources. I see that other editors are providing input on the sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Something that will need doing if this draft is accepted, is to remove all the direct external links. They could either simply be deleted, or converted into references. (This is just a routine matter of style, it shouldn't affect whether the draft is accepted.) Maproom (talk) 09:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Note: Also see later discussion #Requesting support to get my first article accepted. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 09:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was invited to the teahouse without saying anything about my draft

Dear manager,

My name is Qingguo Hong from Pennsylvania State University. I tried to write an article named Extended Galerkin Method. The link is:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Extended_Galerkin_Method

Then I was invited to the teahouse without saying anything about improving the article.

Could you tell me how to improve the article and get it published?

Best Qingguo Hong — Preceding unsigned comment added by QingguoHong (talk • contribs) 01:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@QingguoHong: You have not nominated it for review yet.
Before you do that, I strongly recommend looking at this guide on how to write articles. As you are citing yourself, the article verges on original research, which we do not publish. What you really need are independent sources (not written by you). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Aaand I see you copied and pasted from your source. Never do that, always summarize and paraphrase, even if you were one of the original authors. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I would also note, QingguoHong, that the draft as it stood needed a less technical lead section to put it in context for the less mathematical reader. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding referenced content about Extended Galerkin Method to Galerkin Method (which itself needs revision to be more accessible to a non-mathematician audience). David notMD (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

preference of "citation needed" template to "cn" template

I'm just curious... I've noticed a couple of cases where someone has replaced the "cn" template in an article with "citation needed" (in at least one case, I think that was the only change made).

Is it wrong to characterize this as a gratuitous change? Is there a generally accepted preference for the longer form? TIA! Fabrickator (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: It is an unneeded change, but you should WP:AGF. The two templates are the same: Cn redirects to Citation needed. RudolfRed (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Fabrickator, Wikipedia:Bots/Dictionary says: A cosmetic edit is one that doesn't change the output HTML or readable text of a page. By contrast, a substantive edit is one that does change the output HTML or readable text of a page. However, the term cosmetic edit is often used to encompass all edits of such little value that the community deems them to not be worth making in bulk, even though those edits might change the output HTML or readable text in subtle ways. In general, making a change that is purely a cosmetic edit in that sense is frowned upon, and may be considered disruptive editing if done habitually. Also WP:NOTBROKEN says Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. I will add that I pretty mush always use {{cn}} rather than the 'full" name when I place this in an article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:01, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
RudolfRed DESiegel I appreciate these responses, I really wanted to be sure that this wasn't some convention that I should be conforming to, and that when I encounter these in either format in an existing article, it is best to just leave them alone, regardless of what had been done in the specific edits I mentioned. Fabrickator (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Fabrickator: Some automated tools, like AWB, will perform such edits. The user running the tool should know not to save such edits if they are the only ones the tool finds (or they discard the other changes). Sometimes, people (including me) will forget, though, and such edits will slip in. Note that some tools have bugs in them, too, which will cause them to replace a redirect with the target, even though the redirect is not equivalent in meaning, and will likely turn into a non-redirect at some point. Cleanup templates are common examples of this. I would discuss it with the user making the edits if it's not an isolated incident.
Note that there are exceptions to the "cosmetic" rule, like replacing deprecated or improperly used HTML tags, which may not make an immediate change to the rendered page, but can affect browsers in the future and screen-readers (e.g., replacing <br />-separated lists with proper list templates). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
I always use {{Fact}} and let some bot add the required timestamp. These maintenance tags are supposed to be fixed, replacing them by the verbose {{citation needed}} could be handled by this bot if it had any advantages, but apparently that's not the case. –84.46.53.107 (talk) 13:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Pool Player articles - Chinese names

Hi. I would like someone to look over a few articles about pool and snooker players I've written, to correct any errors I've made with names, and possibly to add Chinese names. The articles are Shi Chunxia, Katrina Wan, Fu Xiaofang, Lin Yuan-chun, Liu Hsin-mei, and Chen Siming. Many thanks in advance for any help. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article already exists in one language

I am new to Wikipedia editing. I thought to start contributing by taking up one of the "missing articles" in the Women in Red WikiProject[3], since I have looked into this topic (women in geology, in this specific case) before. The name I picked, Virginia Steen-McIntyre, an American geologist, has in fact a page already, but it is in German only. I have read the guidelines about creating an article, but I did not find anything about articles that exist in one language only. What is the relevant policy on this? Can an article in English be created independently of the one in German? Thanks. --JurassicCrawler (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, JurassicCrawler, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, it can, and to some extent it must. Each language edition of Wikipedia is independent of every othe one, and may have its own standards and rules. An article suitable for one may not be accepted on another. It is possible to translate an article from another language for use on the English-language Wkipedia, see Wikipedia:Translation. But that article must still pass the standards and policies of this site, including its Notability and referencing policies. Or you may start from scratch, ignoring the German version. Or you may use the german version to find sources, but then re-write from those sources and any other suitable Reliable sources you can find. Any of these is acceptable, but in no case is it required that the new article here closely track the German-language article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Ask for feedback

Dear @FULBERT: and @A-NEUN:, thank you for trying out the WikiLoop Battlefield. Leaderboard shows among the logged in users, you have been the top users of this application. We would like to ask for your feedback on how we can make this application better to use.

We also welcome other Wikipedia editors who are interested in helping out fighting vandalism to try WikiLoop Battlefield.

Note: for those of you who think the name "battlefield" is a bad idea, you are not alone! We have Wikipedia_talk:WikiLoop_Battlefield#Concern_about_Language_of_the_Name_of_the_Tool an active discussion soliciting new name suggestions for this counter-vandalism tool.

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbenlv: One improvement I think would be useful would be to make the choice buttons somewhere that you do not have to look for them on long changes, as I recall that I had a moment of not knowing where they were, before scrolling down to find them. This is not an incredibly important issue, as I did find the buttons within a very short period of time, however I just want to bring it to your attention. A-NEUN ⦾TALK⦾ 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Xinbenlv, I like how it is no longer a scrolling list of new edits to review when I begin, so I do not feel I have to rush as I did when that was automatically advancing in an earlier version. I agree with A-NEUN that having the buttons perhaps above the edit may be helpful, especially when there are multiple article changes in the same edit to review that requires scrolling. FULBERT (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@FULBERT: and @A-NEUN: thank you both. May I ask how big of the screens are either of you using when doing patrolling. If you are using mobile phone, we will prioritize static button. If you are using keyboard+ large screen, we will probably prioritize keyboard shortcuts feature. Which do you prefer?
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Xinbelv: Just tried this. Interesting tool. I went to revert an uncited blp edit, but gave up on my mobile in desktop view as the prefilled edit summary was so humungously long (and I've no 'End' button) that I gave up trying to insert my revert rationale at the end of all that text, and simply let the edit remain. So you might wish to consider how those without access to a proper keyboard might have problems using it. Hoping this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixing failed ping Xinbenlv Nick Moyes (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and if youre planning on including further functions, a live spellchecker which emulates the now non-functioning Lupin Spellchecker would be great, especially if it could ignore urls and image titles, which Lupin never did. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thank you. I hope you like it. Yes I agree that thee button is not very easy to click on, and it's hard to scroll to a very long text. We plan to roll out "direct revert" which may in the future allow easier choice of reason and better views. stay tuned.
@A-NEUN:, thank you for your feedback, we will take into our feature planning https://github.com/google/wikiloop-battlefield/issues/157. Please keep patrolling and if you like our tool please let more community members know.
@FULBERT:, I am glad you like our latest change from scrolling list to a single edit. Yeah the button is a bit hard to find and we will explore usability improvments

xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Help with Article Creation

I am trying to create an article about this website: https://mygiggle.us. I am trying to be objective and provide a full article without making it sound like advertising. This is all I have so far: Giggle, Corp. is an American based multinational website.[1] It specializes in software development for web and desktop.

Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlenderingProgrammer (talk • contribs) 13:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ [1]
You need to read the advice at WP:Your first article, and also Wikipedia's definition of notability. So far your only reference is to the subject's own website, so without coverage in independent published reliable sources you would be wasting your time. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I now see that you had produced and submitted a draft at Draft:Giggle, Corp.. Not surprisingly, it was declined; have you not read the feedback which you received, and the useful links in that feedback? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, BlenderingProgrammer. Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics. Please read our guideline on the notability of companies and our guideline on the notability of software. Normally you will need to find and cite several reliable sources that are independent of the company/site. This means no press releases, and nothing from the company site counts. (They can be used to support non-controversial facts, but do not help with notability.) Interviews with people involved with the site are also not considered independent. It also means no fan sites, no forums, and no brief mentions.
You will want to read Your First Article, and referencing for beginners to better understand what is needed. Creating a new article from a blank start is one of the harder tasks on Wikipedia, probably the hardest one a newish editor is likely to try. You might want to work on existing articles, trying to help improve them, for a bit first. Or you might want to look at the steps suggested in the section above on #JT Music.
Feel free to ask any specific questions here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

JT Music

I woudl really like to make a wikipedia page about JT Music so it is not just a redirect. Could you or somebody help me with some good editing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techoliver298 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Techoliver298, and welcome to the Teahouse. That is in effect writing a new article, since that is pretty nearly nothing about JT Music in the current target article, Dan Bull. That is always tricky, and usually the most significant issue is establishing notability. This can be frustrating. Follwoing the steps below often but not always leads to success. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


  • First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our specific guideline on the notability of musical topics. Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there. Also, check if the topic is already covered, perhaps under a different spelling or in a section of an article about a wider topic. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that.
  • Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
  • Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
  • Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
  • Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
  • Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed. Submit the draaft when you thimnk it is ready for reviewq. Be prepared to wait a while for a review (several weeks or more).
  • Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.
Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I will add, Techoliver298, that if you create a draft with some useful sources and post about it here on the Teahouse, I will try to look it over and give some advice, perhaps doing some editing as well. But until you have at least the basic three or four reliable sources with significant coverage, I can't really help much. It isn't i field i know well enough to find sources in easily. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

JT Music. Here is the page I just made. You said you would help me with it. Techoliver298 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Standard advice (which you got, above) is to go through Articles for Creation. Instead, you created the article, and now it has been nominated for deletion. Major flaws are that the band's own website and itunes are not acceptable references, and there are no other references. As creator, you have a limited time (week or so) to remove all the bad refs and add at least three good refs, or this will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ross Kolby

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I am working on an article about a Norwegian artist and author: Draft:Ross Kolby. I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Could you please help me to see if something is missing or if I may improve this article more while it is waiting for being evaluated? Best, Constituto (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Constituto, I took a quick look at your draft. There are a lot of references there, but the first few I looked at weren't ideal - some very brief mentions, a directory listing, his own YouTube channel, and the websites of galleries displaying his work (which would not really be considered, since they are promoting him). The draft was declined previously because the sources did not demonstrate the subject's notability per WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. When it comes to notability, you only need a handful of sources, but they need to be high-quality - independent, secondary and reliable sources, giving the subject significant coverage. I'd also ask you whether you have a connection with the subject - one of the photographs is of him meeting the king, which you uploaded as your own work - that suggests to me that you know him? If so, you need to read COI carefully, and make the necessary declarations. GirthSummit (blether) 14:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Thank you so much for looking at my draft. I am not connected to the subject personally, I just find his art interesting. I got inspired by the article about another Norwegian artist I like: Sverre Malling. I looked at it and its references and gave it a shot. If I succeed with my article I'd like to write more articles about contemporary artists, but I see that finding the right references proves to be a challenge. I am new to this, so I might choose the wrong sources? I thought the articles from the National Broadcaster NRK would be good. Would a National Broadcaster be an independent and reliable source? I uploaded the photo of the artist and the King as my own work because I do own it. I was given the photo from the photographer, free to use in any way. He is an amateur photographer, whereas all the other photos I found from that event was from newspapers and were copyrighted. They could naturally not be uploaded to Commons. But perhaps I should have uploaded the photo in another category? I could remove the text about the exhibitons and the gallery references, if you would suggest that? I put the film from YouTube as a reference merely to say the film exists, not as a indipendent source. Should I remove it, perhaps? I am grateful for your good advices in this to me new process. Best, Constituto (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Constituto, the NRK source is good in terms of independence and reliability - if just doesn't tell us much about the subject. It tells us quite a bit about what one of his paintings, and mentions a couple of other ones, but gives us almost nothing about the man himself. Having said that though, reading it through again it would appear that you could make a case for his passing WP:NARTIST based on criterion 4(d) - is his painting of the crowns on permanent display with the crown jewels? And are his paintings of the various Norwegian kings on permanent display in a major gallery? If so, that might be a strong case for notability. With regard to the photograph, ideally the person who created it should have uploaded it, using their own account, since they are the copyright holder. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 09:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Thank you for your remarks. I see. The inline citations I hoped would tell us more about the subject are the interviews with the newspapers Budstikka (reference No. 2) and Varden (reference No. 4). Yes, his painting of the crowns is on permanent display in the statal Crown Regalia Museum by the Nidaros Cathedral in Trondheim. https://www.nidarosdomen.no/en/attractions/riksregaliene. I found no statement about this at their website, but it is there as the NRK article states. His portraits of the three WWII kings are on permanent dispaly at the Armed Forces Museum in Oslo, which is one of Norway's oldest and most visited museums. They in fact state that they exhibit the paintings: http://forsvaretsmuseer.no/Hjemmefrontmuseet/Portretter-av-Frigjoeringskongene. This text simply says that you may se the three portraits at the main exhibiton. I could contact the photographer and ask him if he might upload the portrait on Commons himself. Again thank you for your advice. Best, Constituto (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Constituto, OK - I'm becoming convinced of his notability. If I may suggest some changes to the article that would help a reviewer:
  • The draft doesn't have a lead section, summarising the content. Write one, being sure to include the basic facts that make him notable (work in the permanent collections of significant galleries).
  • Cut extraneous information. You don't need a paragraph explaining who Vera Lynn is, for example - the wikilink to her article will provide all the information the reader needs about her.
  • Cut any puffery - there's not much, but for example you don't need to describe the Albert Hall as an 'iconic venue'.
  • We don't use honorifics. Harald V is just Harald V, not His Majesty Harald V. (We're not singling out Norway for disrespect - take a look at Elizabeth II!)
  • Cut any unsourced assertions - for example, the list of people he has painted portraits of is entirely unsourced.
  • The sourcing for his writing isn't great. I'm no kind of expert on Norwegian literary sources, but from a quick look I'm seeing his profile on his publisher's website, there's what appears to be a directory listing for his book, a review on what appears to be a fan site (I see it's 'powered by WordPress', which suggests it's more of a blog than an RS). Reviews in reliably published independent sources would really help beef this section up.
If you do all that, the article will appear less promotional, and it will be clear to a reviewer why he is notable - it should then be a much easier review. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 11:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Splendid! Thank you again so much for your very useful advices. I will carry out all your suggestions. Re. the sources for his writing I put the inline citations merely to prove that the novels indeed were published. So not to claim a book was published without any proof. Of reviews I found one of "Flammer" ("Flames") in Nordlys, a large Norwegian newspaper, and put it in. Do you suggest that I remove the publisher proof that the books were indeed published? Wouldn't an editor then question if I claim something uncertain? Best, Constituto (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Constituto, part of writing an article is about deciding what is significant enough to include, and what might be better to leave out. If someone has written a book which was reviewed in a national newspaper, then it's definitely worth mentioning, and the newspaper review itself is the perfect source. If, on the other hand, someone wrote a book that nobody ever reviewed, and the only evidence we can find for its existence is the publisher's website, it's sometimes better to leave that out if it is other work that they are really known for. GirthSummit (blether) 13:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I fully understand. That is a sound guideline for wtiting articles. Thanks! I see if I can find other reviews, and delete what cannot be supperted by one. Would you be interested in reviewing my article once I am done? I understand it might take months awaiting an editor to come by my draft and then wishing to review it. Best, Constituto (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Constituto, I tend not to review articles 'on demand' in response to TeaHouse requests - it's kind of like encouraging people to skip the queue. However, if you make the changes I've suggested, it should be quite an easy review, and so more likely to be picked up early. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 13:54, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Of course, I fully understand. I'll continue on the article with your suggestions. My reference No. 2 has jumped down a line from the number. Do you know how to make it read like the other references? Thank you again for your time and good advice. And Happy New Year! Best,Constituto (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I would recommend that you expand the references from the current bare URLs, preferably by filling in relevant parameters in templates such as {{cite web}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
David Biddulph, I see. Thank you so much for answering. Best, Constituto (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I have now tried do write the lead section you suggested. Would you care to skim through it and see if you think it fulfill its task or if needs more work? I have put the inline citations that underline the facts there, so a reader will see the information builds on documentation. So now some inline citations appear first in the lead section and also further down in the text where this information is explained more thoroughly. Should I remove the citations where they appear for the second time? Or is it good for a reader to be able to check a citation also here? Best, Constituto (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Constituto, it's looking quite a bit better now, although I renamed some of your section titles - hope you don't mind. With a lead section, you actually don't need to use references - they're not prohibited, but provided you are summarising information that is already included further down the article, and is referenced there, the lead is allowed not to have refs. Definitely include them in the body of the text where you are making the detailed content - the lead summarises the body, it shouldn't have information which isn't contained elsewhere in the article. One other thing you might think about doing is filling in the details of each of the refs - you are using 'naked' URLs, but if you use the 'Cite' tool above the editing window, you'll see that you can fill in lots more fields, which make it easier for readers to understand what each ref is before clicking on it - again, this will help a reviewer. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 12:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, Thank you for that! I do not mind at all, I'm grateful for all help. I have now skipped the references in the lead section. An I'll look into this with the 'Cite' tool. Best, Constituto (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, I have inserted an inline citation (No. 15) which is a new documantary film about Dame Vera Lynn and the new portrait I write about in the aricle. Is that a good reference and idea? I inserted it to illustrate the notability of the subject. I now learnt that if an article is rejected three times it will no longer be possible to work on it. As it is quite challenging to write a good article i fear that it will be rejected for a third time, so I wish to ask you if you might skim through it again to see if there are other aspects I should work on. Best, Constituto (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Constituto, I'll try to get time to look at it over the weekend GirthSummit (blether) 13:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
I had a quick look - I'll leave some more detailed thoughts on the draft's talk page, but the short answer is that I don't think that documentary is an RS (it seems to have been produced by an advertising agency to promote the exhibition), and it's not really adding any extra information to the article anyway, so I'd ditch it if I were you. GirthSummit (blether) 12:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed

Hi, Mohammed Taha Mohammed Ahmed is a Sudanese journalist and the article is connected to an Egyptian singer page in Arabic is the languages section. The correct article in Arabis is "محمد طه محمد أحمد". I don't know how to solve this problem.Tarboun's (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this, Tarboun's. Interwiki links are handled at Wikidata, but I cannot simply edit the Wikidata item, because the arwiki entry for Ahmed is attached to a different item; so I have raised it at d:Wikidata:Interwiki conflicts/Unresolved/2020, and somebody should attend to it there soon. I have assumed that the Egyptian arabic entry arz:محمد طه also relates to the singer; is that correct?--ColinFine (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I had been investigating at the same time as Colin, & have similarly reported it at Wikidata, with a bit more detail including dates of birth and death. Hopefully the Wikidata folk will be able to disentangle. The arz entry does indeed refer to the singer. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes ColinFine, the Egyptian wiki page is for the same singer. Thanks! Tarboun's (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Am I ok to start another draft whilst waiting for one to be reviewed?

Or should I find something else to do whilst waiting? (I am also aware that reviews could take a long time to do) LampGenie01 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, LampGenie01, you may have as many drafts in progress as you choose to at the same time. You can also work further on Draft:2013 Kashima Antlers season if you choose. Were you able to find any basis for additional text there, as I had suggested? Or do you feel that there is nothing more to do on that until it is reviewed? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes you can, make as many drafts as you want! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:02, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Editing reference list after page was declined with comments for more.

How to edit the references after a draft page has been declined with comments suggesting improvement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towhee19 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Towhee19. Happy new year, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not a matter of "edit the references", it's a matter of finding independent sources. I haven't looked at the sources for Draft:Pierre Honnell, but just looking at the Reference section, most of them appear to be things authored by Honnell, and the rest just mentions. The thing to remember is that in an article about Honnell, Wikipedia has basically no interest in anything said, written, published, or done by Honnell except as reported by people wholly unconnected with Honnell. That is what you need to find: places where people who have no connection with him have chosen to write at some length about him, and been published in reliable places. Some of his publication may certainly appear in a bibliography in the article, but hardly any of them will be appropriate as a reference for material in the article, because in most cases, if information was published only by Honnell or his associates or organisations, it doesn't belong in the article. (See PRIMARY for the limited exception. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
@Towhee19: just adding to what ColinFine has said, I sense that you might be connected with Honnell as you've included quite a bit of very minor detail which is not really necessary for an article, but for which you've not given a source. If this is the case, please could I ask you to remove all of that, and also to make a brief declaration on your userpage of that connection (if any). This will ease the passage of the article, as Wikipedia must only contain facts that someone in India or Indianapolis - Derby or in Abu Dhabi - can find and verify for themselves, and we need to know if there might be a potential Conflict of Interest. If you are having difficulties adding and formatting your own references, I have drafted what I hope are some simple guidance notes at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. The key thing is to locate and insert 'independent' references about the subject, not by the subject. Hoping this might assist a bit, regards Nick Moyes (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes, I am Pierre's oldest daughter. I have donated the matric computor to the Computer History Museum and the originals of his professional papers and patents to the Washington University Library Archives. I am currently working on his personal papers and correspondence. I have sent versions of this bio to both the Computer History Museum and the Washington University Special Collections Librarian. I will seek another place to document his biography and will delete this draft. Thank you for your time and attention. 01:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)Towhee19 (talk)

@Towhee19: Please don't rush to delete your draft. Nothing we say here suggests you've done anything you shouldn't have. But we only accept pages about subjects which meet our 'Notability Criteria'. So that is the criterion we all have to work to. Your connection to them is fine, just so long as you make a quick note of that connection on your talk page. If you want to carry on with your draft, and then pop back here for further advice, you are most welcome so to do. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Given Towhee19 sent versions of this bio to both the Computer History Museum and the Washington University Special Collections Librarian., can someone comment on what the procedure is to keep Wikipedia's article from looking like a copyvio of those two other recipients, should they publish them? Do we have a way of tracking such common-source situations? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: interesting question! Unless it was very clear that the author here, and the author of a document submitted and subsequently published by Washington University were one and the same person (might need an OTRS confirmation), I think the only clear way would be for the author who submits document to a University to ensure that it is published with a CC-BY-SA Creative Commons licence (free for commercial use). Or maybe clarifying that material sent for publication had previously appeared on Wikipedia, though in the case of an unpublished draft, that would be a bit pointless. Considering my own situation, I have published text to which I've asserted copyright, so my simplest approach (were there a valid reason for me to publish that content here) would be to re-write it in a not very close-paraphrased manner. (Probably easier than releasing it via OTRS.) Of course, I have the advantage of editing here under my real name, so the connection between the real world me and the Wiki-me aren't too hard to see. But that's not the same for anyone editing under a pseudonym, as most people do. Not sure what else I can suggest. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes, AlanM1, and Towhee19: as long as the content was on Wikipedia, even on a draft, before it was published elsewhere, then it is not a copyright infringement. When and if the content is published elsewhere {{Backwards copy}} can be used to indicate this, and to prevent it being incorrectly tagged as a copyright problem here. (I am ignoring, for the moment, the possibility that someone copied an unpublished manuscript without permission. That would also be an infringement, but is not likely in this case, and is not the usual issue we deal with.) No OTRS confirmation is needed in such a case.
Of course, that does not deal with the notability issue, which is present for any article, nor with any possible COI or NPOV issue. But those can usually be dealt with by additional editing if need be. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@DESiegel: The great thing about the Teahouse is that we can all learn so much from everyone's responses. I wasn't aware of that particular template - so thank you so much for your reply. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What is this?

I've never seen this before in an article: [4] {[lang|fr|Place de la Republique en Soir]}. What is it? Maineartists (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It was a format error. The template should begin and end with double curly brackets, not {[ … ]}. I've corrected it. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hm. OK. But what does it do? To the common eye on the page it's merely italicized. There isn't a link. What good is it? curious. Maineartists (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Have you read Template:Lang? --David Biddulph (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Maineartists: Short version: it marks the text as being in that language. This is particularly useful for text that is in a non-Latin script (e.g., Hebrew, Arabic, Asian scripts). Some of the templates have built-in parms for multiple transliterations (e.g. {{lang-zh}}), linking, etc. For example,

{{Langx|he|ישראל|translit=Yisraʾel|translation=Israel}}

produces:

Hebrew: ישראל, romanized: Yisraʾel, lit. 'Israel'

with the Hebrew text marked up with:

<span dir="rtl" lang="he">ישראל</span>

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, AlanM1! Thanks! That is really helpful and interesting. Quick question: is that really necessary in this instance? Maineartists (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Maineartists: Maybe. I imagine there are tools like screen readers that can use the correct pronunciation based on the lang property instead of a mangled attempt at pronouncing it as if it were English. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Article Draft

Hello! I have created a draft for an article I have created Draft: Charlie Dick but I have never gotten it approved yet as a page, is there any way that my article can get approved and be created as a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinBear (talk • contribs) 00:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ColinBear, and welcome to the Teahouse. I am looking at the draft. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
ColinBear, although you never submitted the draft under WP:AFC, I did what amoined to an AfC review, because it looked pretty good to me at first, and I have now moved it to Charlie Dick in the main article namespace. It si approved. Note that in future, to request review of a draft, you must normally submit it for review, or no one will know that you wan tit reviewed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Changing title of my sandbox

Hello, I need help with changing the title onto my sandbox. Im very new to making my own wiki page and would really appreciate any help-BIg Tasty09 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Tasty09 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Big Tasty09: Instead of moving that page into article space (which is what you seem to be suggesting is what you want), I've gone ahead and done what would have happened the second it landed in article space: deleted it. I'll be sending you a summary of some relevant site policies and guidelines that explain why. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this username ok?

I just saw this usermane and I don't know if it's ok or if it violates WP:Username. Can someone else give it a look, please?--SirEdimon (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@SirEdimon: Thanks for your question, I don't think that that username violates the policy, but it is definitely borderline. I think that if you reported it to UAA, admins probably would not block it, but I'm not 100% sure. That's my opinion, I think it's ok, but iffy. Puddleglum 2.0 05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@SirEdimon and Puddleglum: I frequent UAA quite a bit, and If I saw that reported there I would mark it "Not a blatant violation". DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC),
Also, I just looked at their recent contribs and they seem to be making OK edits. Seems ok to me. Thanks for the question though! Happy editing all! Puddleglum 2.0 05:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ::Puddleglum2.0 I didn't report it at UAA, because according to their rules that noticeboard is for blatant and serious violation of WP:Username. As I'm not sure that this username violates the policy I chose to post here, hoping that some admins and/or experience users could analyze this and reach a conclusion about it.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. If it's ok and fine with it. Thank you again.--SirEdimon (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course, and again, have fun editing! Puddleglum 2.0 05:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
I assume you're concerned that the username is promotional, since it's the name of a product. Per WP:PROMONAME, promotional usernames require evidence of promotional editing to be blocked. So, if this user edited Chicken nuggets to say "McDonalds chicken nuggets are the best", it might be blockable - but if they're not doing that, then it's not. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 06:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm new at this - how do I edit an article that I saved?

Hi,

I am new at this. How do I edit an article that I saved with the Publish button? I had only just started with it and wanted to save it.

Thomastwinnings (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Thomastwinnings. Please see my response to your other question. For reference, you don't need to start a new discussion thread every time you post at the Teahouse. If you want to add something to a previous post, you can simply do so in the same discussion thread right below the last post in the thread. In addition, it sometimes takes a bit of time for someone to respond to a Teahouse post so there's no need to repeat the same question or basically same question multiple times. It doesn't make things go faster. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Valentina Murabito

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. I am working on an article about the italian artist: "Draft:Valentina Murabito". Actually it's an translation from the german Wikipedia about her. I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. I put it in the sandbox in the beginning of November 2019 but unfortunatly until now it wasn't accepted. The sources are all public pages, articles about her and so on, so nothing personal. Could you help me? Best, KuLit63 (talk)

@KuLit63: Your draft was never submitted for review. Where can you see that the draft was not accepted? Interstellarity (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
@KuLit63: I have added a submit button for you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Interstellarity (talk)

@Interstellarity: Thanks for your immidiate reply. Sorry, I used the wrong term. It's not that the article wasn't accepted, I wanted to say "nothing happened". I'll have a look if it works with the submit button.
KuLit63, before you click submit (or soon after if you have already done so), take a look at your draft. In particular look to see if it will pass the standards on this version of Wikipedia for Notability. This usually requires finding multiple independent published reliable sources that discuss the subject in some detail. You might want to read the comments a couple of sections above at #JT Music. You also might want to read our guideline on the notability of creative people. As that indicates, sources about an artist's works can also help to establish notability, but must still be reliable and independent. If there are no such sources, no article is going to be approved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Once you do click submit, that puts the draft into a pool to be reviewed. It is a pool, not a first-come, first-served line. Volunteers choose what drafts to review as they please. There are however, several thousand drafts now waiting for review. If all or most of the sources are in another language, it is likely that the draft will wait for a volunteer who knows that language. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi KuLit63. In addition to the advice you've received above, I also suggest you look at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you're simply translating an article from German Wikipedia into English, you will need to properly attribute the source article in order to comply with the terms of Wikipedia's licensing. You should also be aware that different language Wikipedias are separate projects that have their own respective policies and guidelines; so, just because an article about Murabito exists on German Wikipedia doesn't automatically mean it should exist on English Wikipedia. There may be lots of similarities between German and English Wikipedia, but there may also be some important differences; this means that if you're going to try and create an article on English Wikipedia, you're going to have to do so in accordance with English Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Help Improve Wikipedia Pop-Up

Hi,

I signed up for a Wikipedia membership last week and missed the Pop-Up that says "Help Improve Wikipedia" "Edit a Suggested Article".

In order to progress my membership, please can you send me the link that this pop-up refers to?

Thanks

Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Blincoe (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Steve Blincoe Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for being willing to help build this project. I'm not certain what the link is that you are referring to, but if you visit the Community Portal, you might find some of the information you are looking for. You may also want to use the new user tutorial. Again, welcome. 331dot (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
@Steve Blincoe: It's the feature at Wikipedia:GettingStarted. You can start on a Random article. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Beginning~ would love clarity on how to contribute/edit/write for...

Women in Green Related content: ancestral mysticism — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireAndersonGraham (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello ClaireAndersonGraham! I'm not quite sure I understand your question. If you mean that you want to add something about ancestral mysticism to the Women in Green article, then you should find good sources as defined at WP:Reliable sources, and summarize them in your own words with WP:Inline citations. These sources must be about ancestral mysticism in Women in Green, otherwise we call it WP:Original research and kick it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for factual corrections

Dear Colleagues,

I'm sorry to complain again about a Wikipedia page concerning myself (titled 'J.C.D. Clark'), and my concern is to correct factual inaccuracies. I complained about this in 2010, but only now have I looked at the page again and found that the material is still there. Can you please help? I am unfamiliar with how to correct or update Wikipedia entries, and must appeal to the community for guidance.

I refer to the fourth paragraph, beginning 'Clark became notorious'. This is, I submit, wild language, and unsupported by facts. The only cited evidence for it is an opinion from one person, a contemporary historian named Ronald Hutton, and an opinion is not evidence.

Similarly, the claim that 'a public letter denouncing Clark was signed by every historian at Cambridge except for Sir Geoffrey Elton'. This is fiction: there was no such letter. If your biographer wishes to stand by his story, let him produce the letter. But there was no such letter. The fact that the claim is footnoted to an essay by one historian (again, Hutton) does not make it true.

The page is also way out of date, with little factual information since 1994. If it is worth publishing such a page, can it please be accurate and up to date? A neutral, factual account is all that I ask.

I would greatly appreciate your advice.

Yours sincerely Jonathan Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJ2B=! (talk • contribs) 15:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

HJ2B=! Hi there. I do see problems with the information you have pointed out; it is sourced by works of a harsh critic of yours and should most likely be removed. It would be helpful for someone with knowledge of the reliability of Hutton's work to have their say as I can't offer that myself. The quote in the fourth paragraph is fine to stay, in my opinion, as it is clearly indicated that the view comes from one man, and one man only. Perhaps the whole of the fourth paragraph can stay, but phrases such as "According to Hutton..." added in. The information was added way back in 2009, as I believe you already know and the editor or editors who added it appear to be inactive. Therefore, it's probably best to have a discussion on the talk page and reach consensus. I am happy to input my opinion there. Cheers, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Social media as a source

If someone posted their own birthday, childhood info, etc. on their own social media, is that considered a reliable source? --125 Beethoven (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello 125 Beethoven! Per WP:ABOUTSELF, some simple and undisputed info like born when/in can be sourced to such sources. We try to avoid it if possible, but it can be done. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Here are a few things to think about, 125 Beethoven. The social media account must be official or verified as being from the actual person. Also, some people, especially in show business, may have a motivation to be seen as younger than they really are. So, if a birth date is disputed, the date given by the person on social media may not be reliable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Dembow wiki article

Hi all. I know there's a guide on how to address plagiarism on here, but I've never really done that sort of thing - contacting other editors, etc. Can someone with more experience than me with this address this? The article in question is Dembow, which heavily plagiarizes its RateYourMusic page. --Jokullmusic 03:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The offending cut/paste was done on December 11th, and yes, exact copy of paragraphs of text. David notMD (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Some of that is also in https://frojas.sitios.ing.uc.cl/cix1ev/dembow-dominicano-2019.html DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Changes reverted, versions with copied content revision deleted. Any valid changes will need to be reapplied. If https://rateyourmusic.com/genre/Dembow/ is a valid source that should be used, someone will need to put facts from it into the article properly, without copying. Thanks for calling attention to this, Jokullmusic. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources#Rate Your Music is "deprecated", that's worse than "unreliable". –84.46.53.65 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks on talk page

I am getting repeated personal attacks from a user on a talk page. The attacks would fall under these 2:

  • Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
  • Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)

I am being civil, but I feel this needs more attention than just ignoring it. I am not sure what to do though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jews_for_Jesus#%22Jews_for_Jesus_is_not_considered_a_sect_of_Judaism_by_any_mainstream_Jewish_authorities.%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laella (talk • contribs) 13:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Laella, hi - the correct forum for reporting personal attacks is ANI. I'm not sure that what has been said at the talk page you reference quite reaches a sanctionable level, but I agree that discussion needs some of the heat taking out of it. I'll remind the editor in question about civility. GirthSummit (blether) 14:10, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to note that if you make a report at WP:ANI, you really need to identify specific edits, perhaps quoting the most egregious text if possible, and of course to actually name the user. Pointing editors to a lengthy discussion, and expecting them to guess at what behaviour you object to, is not the best way to get it dealt with, especially at WP:ANI. Hugsyrup 14:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Laella (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't log in and want to edit.

I am writing a book about an early Denver area flyer and builder of aircraft by the name of Frank Van Dersarl. Frank is cited twice in Wikipedia and neither cite is totally correct. I would like to edit those. My first problem is that I have not been able to successfully reset my password to log in. I have entered my user name and a temporary password sent to me by Wikipedia but it doesn't work.

Thank you in advance for your help.

George Thompson Durango, Colorado — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.18.146 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you received a temporary password to recover your account access, it should work. Make sure your caps lock key is not on. Only you have access to your password- if for some reason it does not work, you might need to just create a new account and identify it as a successor to your original account("I am JohnDoe2, I previously used the account JohnDoe1 but lost the password to it"). 331dot (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, George, and welcome to the Teahouse. For most articles, you don't have to be logged in to edit them (though I get that you would prefer to use your account). But one thing I would warn you about, from what you say above, is original research. If your research is based on reliably published secondary sources, then you can report what those sources say; but you must not add your own arguments, conclusions, or synthesis of them. You should not add information which is not in a reliably published source, even if you are sure it is correct. Furthermore, you should not remove or alter information which is cited to an apparently reliable source, even if you are sure it is not correct. (If the information you want to remove or replace is not sourced, you may remove it).
If your book gets published by a reputable publisher, then it will be able to be cited as a source in Wikipedia articles: but you should not add such citations yourself, as you will be regarded as having a conflict of interest; but you may suggest edits on the article's talk page, with those citations, so that an uninvolved editor can decide whether they are appropriate or not. --ColinFine (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

On reporting editors working to promote a political view/organization

I wanted to report a group of editors (mostly anonymous) who are editing articles to the stated purpose. It is said they are hired to do such work, though thats an irrelevant opinion in Wikipedia terms. I was wondering if there already exists a watchlist of already reported editors of such nature, which haven't been blocked yet.

So are we allowed to ask for such a watchlist if it exists, so that we could mark/undo their biased edits faster? Otherwise it would require us to go through every article in the topics we want to monitor for change.

Another (more permissible?) way to the same ends, whilst considerably slower, would be a way to list all articles with a search string, in decreasing order of last major edit, or something like that..

To be specific, I am more concerned about Indian politics and history articles, since it won't be wrong stats at all if I claim 90% of Indians take the word of Wikipedia and the Google search results to their questions(that list Wikipedia articles at the top most of the times) as the only truth.

As cool as Wiki is already I think everyone has already thought about such things, so please tell me whatever I can do and where.

Edit: by "paid editors" I meant anonymous people paid by 3rd parties that seek to further their own agenda, not Wikipedia's. Irrelevant still.

--Subham Burnwal (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Subham Burnwal Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If editors have disclosed on Wikipedia that they are paid to make edits, that complies with the paid editing policy, though they still have a conflict of interest and should not make edits directly, but use the article talk page to suggest edits. If editors with a conflict of interest(COI) are directly editing, you can make a report at the conflict of interest noticeboard. If editors are promoting a political party or political views, that could be reported as vandalism to Administrators intervention against vandalism.
The only way for you to monitor edits to articles is to have the articles you wish to monitor in your watchlist. There may be technical things you can do to create some other page, but that's above my pay grade. 331dot (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

How do I edit an article I started but is no longer open on my screen?

How do I edit an article I started but is no longer open on my screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomastwinnings (talk • contribs) 06:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC) Thomastwinnings (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Thomastwinnings, please see User:Thomastwinnings/sandbox--Quisqualis (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Thomastwinnings. Pretty much every recorded (i.e. saved) edit you make on Wikipedia can be found in your user contribution history. You can find this particular page by scrolling up to the top of your screen and looking for "Contributions" and clicking on it: it's to the left of "Log out". There's no record, however, of you making any edits with this particular account other than your above post here at the Teahouse.
Were you trying to create a new article or edit an existing article using this account? If you were, then perhaps you logged off or got disconnected before you saved your edits (i.e. before you clicked the "Publish changes" button). If that's the case, then I don't think there's anyway to retrieve the content you were trying to create because Wikipedia doesn't have an auto-save function like some word processing programs may have. In general, when your doing stuff online you can sometimes click the "back button" on your browser to return to a page you were previously viewing, but its sound like you closed browser window (or it was closed for some reason) so you may no longer be able to that.
Now, if you were using another account (e.g. an IP address account) when you created this content and can remember what that account was, then it might be possible to retrieve things if you saved the relevant content. Otherwise, I afraid it's probably gone forever. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox or succession boxes?

Hi, I do a fair bit of work on political office-holders. I'm a bit confused about the difference between the infoboxes at the upper right-hand beginning of the page, and the succession boxes at the bottom. Some articles use infoboxes, some use succession boxes, and some use both.

Is there a policy or guideline on which to use? And when?

I personally prefer the infobox because it provides more information, and is a good thumbnail sketch that the reader sees immediately.

Thanks,

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, When possible, both ought be used. Infoboxes are preferred in all articles where they make sense, and enough info exists on the subject to fill an infobox. Succession boxes are not mandatory, but are useful. They make for more complete articles, and would be expected out of a top tier article. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That gives you the usual effects of redundancy, it's more robust, but also requires more maintenance, and if the infobox says A, the article says B, and the bottom boxes say C it's a mess. It's also harder to get some "nice" result at the bottom. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
My personal rule is to be consistent, if almost all persons in your case have the succession info in the infobox stick to it. At the bottom can also make sense, and if you disagree "discuss" (=suggest) it on a talk page, link to this "discussion" on another talk age, wait some weeks, and if nobody objected or if there is some rough consensus implement it consistently. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. Is there a definite policy or guideline anywhere on this issue? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Check out Wikipedia:Navigation template, disclaimer: I haven't read it. –84.46.52.205 (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Help, please, with authors who have NO pages in Wikipedia !

Can anyone give me any information about the authors Ric K. Hill, Tony Rosa and/or James Ross. I can find NO information, anywhere, on any of them (with the exception of that which is said about them on the back of their book jackets on the few books I have located in Albuquerque, New Mexico). All three are the authors of recently self-published golf novels (my own particular & peculiar bug-a-boo). These books are: Hill's "Slice of Heaven", "Panic at Augusta", "Stroke of Genius", "Heart of a Caddie", "Rub of the Green", "Bunkered", "Last Mulligan" and "Bogey Train"; Rosa's "The Schoolboy" and "Birdie" and Ross's "Lifetime Loser", "Finish Line", "Tuey's Course", "Opur's Blade", "Pabby's Score" and "Shari's Shot". Any information about these authors or their works will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this. Steve Prekker, Albuquerque, N.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdssteve (talk • contribs) 18:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Pdssteve Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. This sort of general question might be better asked at the Reference Desk. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pdssteve: Note responses at Wikipedia:Help desk#Hill, Ric K. as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Pdssteve, It was recently explained to you that self-published authors almost never achieve what Wikipedia calls WP:Notability. That would explain why those authors you list haven't had articles written about them published in Wikipedia.--Quisqualis (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
That said, this time he just want info about them, not a WP-article, so asking at the refdesk is not a bad idea. Or google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to publish an article on wikipedia

Hi can you help me with the publishing of an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviathema (talk • contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eviathema. If you mean Draft:Sotiris Barsakis, you need much better sources. The only citation does not seem to mention the subject. See WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and HELP:YFA. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you hadn't realised that in the feedaback messages (on the draft and on your user talk page) the words "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia" are in blue, meaning that they are a wikilink, in this case to Wikipedia:Notability? --David Biddulph (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

What are reliabl;e sources for a translated article?

I work as a volunteer translator for a museum. I was asked to translate the Wikipedia page for the museum in English. My translated article was marked as a translation using both method specified in the instructions. However my article was declined due to lack of references so I referenced the original article This was declined again as you are not allowed to reference another Wikipedia page So what to do? Copy the "dutch" references from one page to the other? Or is my editor just being difficult and ignoring that this is a tranbslation — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boulderados (talk • contribs) 15:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Translation. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Boulderados: Hello. You may use non-English sources, however English sources are preferred (if possible). For more information, see WP:NOENG. Please remember that the community discourages editing articles about subjects that you have an external relationship. Best regards, Majavah (t/c) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia not approving my article "Arthur Choo".

Arthur Choo is a Singaporean musician. He is famous for his instrument the cajon. he is doing social works and helping poor and handicapped people in Singapore. I Artdotc want's to publish an article for his great efforts and social work. His contributions should be notable to the people and about him their should be an article on Wikipedia. I'm trying a lot to publish an article on his life but every time after publishing article (Arthur Choo) i'm getting notice that this article should be deleted under section G11. they are saying that i'm advertising in this article but i'm seriously not. I'm a confirmed user on Wikipedia, i know how to write an article and how to edit articles. Even if i upload an image of eminent personality Arthur Choo, i gotta notice that this image should be deleted. I click that image with my own camera, still they don't approve that image.

Wikipedia made me a confirmed user, that's great!, with this now i can create an article, move an article and upload media, this is only a joke with me. Still i'm unable to create articles and upload images. overall their is no use of my confirmed user. why Wikipedia isn't so smart and technical that it is unable to identify the point of view of my written article. There is no single medium of advertising and productivity in my article Arthur Choo. so please, it is a humble request to you, that let my article to be live on Wikipedia without any objections. and please contact me if you seriously found any mistake in my article(Arthur Choo), except deleting my article. Thanks Wikipedia confirmed User Artdotc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artdotc (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Artdotc. The article contains multiple peacock terms, such as "most prominent personality" or "eminent". The sections "Appearances" and "Media" are directly copy-pasted from their own website. Please see our guidelines about neutral point of view and reliable sources. Best regards, Majavah (t/c) 15:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

PediaPress

Hi

I am creating a book on PediaPress (https://pediapress.com/) on the Battle of Gettysburg. PediaPress takes Wikipedia pages and prints them in book form. Unfortunately pages are printed with editing remarks. How can I remove these remarks? Mieczkowski (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mieczkowski! It seems to me that this is a question for PediaPress, perhaps you can try the email here [5]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Shiva Makinian

Dear Teahouse contributors and editors. Hello. I am working on an article about a Iranian artist and actress : Draft:Shiva Makinian . I have worked on it to try to meet the standards and rules of Wikipedia. Could you please help me to see if something is missing or if I may improve this article more? Please help me if possible. Keyhan narimannia (talk) 12:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@Keyhan narimannia: We normally don't bold headings in article titles. I would advise not bolding them. Others are welcome to comment on ways how to improve this article. Interstellarity (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Thank you for respond. I changed they. Keyhan narimannia (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
In the first Declined, Bkissin wrote that the draft appears to be a copyright violation, as copied near-verbatim from the artist's website. This was remedied by a copyright release action. The article still has problems. I recommend deleting the entire section "Public performance and international festivals", as articles about actors do not list their performances. As noted in the second Declined, much of the content is not referenced. David notMD (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@David notMD: The copyright issue has been resolved. I solved this problem with DESiegel's help The page used as the source is copyrighted. You can see at the bottom of the page : http://www.negahtheatre.com/shiva-makinian/
:The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)
But I have a question: Shiva Makinian has many reference for searching the Persian language. But in English she has fewer references. I've used English references in this draft. Now; Can I use valid Persian references for this page? if yes, In this case, the resource problem will be resolved.
Thank you, Keyhan narimannia (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Keyhan narimannia! Yes, WP:RS in other languages can be used, see WP:NOENG. This generally excludes selfpublished sources, social media etc, but for example a good newspaper in any language can be used. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
My recommendations on deleting a section were not about the copyright issue, but rather that in my opinion, listing performances does not belong in any actor article. David notMD (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Power Towers Wikipedia Entry

I would like to add this new company entry from my sandbox to wikipedia main page. How do I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfpuglia (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't, it will certainly be speedily deleted. Wikipedia only has articles about notable topics that have been reported on in depth by multiple, independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to submit an article request for Mutu Certification International

Draft:Mutu Certification International — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karyaanakbangsa (talk • contribs) 19:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Please check, if there are problems, please fix and discuss them first. thank you regards Dani Karyaanakbangsa (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Your draft has been submitted for review, and will be coonsidered on its merits. More importantly, you were told in the response to your previous question, about the mandatory requirements for declaration of paid editing. By continuing to edit without having made such a declaration you are violating Wikmedia's term & conditions. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Check and correct my sandbox

Hello. I want to translate an article ("fr:Manoir des Croft" in French), but my English is not great. Can you check and correct my sandbox, please ? Thanks in advance,--Paul Morère (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

One point is that you need to provide attribution to the article from which you made the translation, see WP:HOWTRANS. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 have content for the official Government Response of FAQs on CAA ?

1. - There is a section named "Indian Government Response" in this article Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019#Indian_government_response. But surprisingly, it gives references for response of Modi from his personal platform (personal twitter handle) rather than any official Indian Government response.

Just as there are individual opinions of Wiki editors and consensus opinion of Wikipedia, individual ministers may have individual opinions on an issue and there is consensus opinion of Indian Government. Based on consensus, Indian Government released FAQs on Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) on 16 December 2019 and later. This was widely reported by Indian media. Written statements are more reliable compared to speeches.
 (Some examples -
1. https://www.livemint.com/news/india/citizenship-amendment-act-govt-busts-myths-11576477654256.html
2. https://www.sentinelassam.com/top-headlines/government-clarifies-as-citizenship-amendment-act-stir-intensifies-across-the-country/
3. https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/government-clarifies-as-caa-stir-intensifies-across-india/1689279)

2. - I tried to edit the article to remove this issue. But those edits were reverted and vague notices accusing me of "Original Research" were put up on my talk page. Other than referencing links of Wikipedia policies, they did not specify what were the Original Research links put by me. I was told to discuss on Article talk page which I did. But the editors were unable to tell which were the "Original Research" links put by me as per their claims. The editors would not discuss details of why the links or content for 'Official Indian Government Response' were rejected by them even though I showed examples of some links which were secondary and reliable. I was then told to go to the Reliable Source Notice Board Forum.

3. - At the Reliable Source notice Board Forum, there has been support for adding the reliable links and content covering official statements of Indian Government for this issue. Until now, there has been no opposition for adding the Official version of Indian Government on that Forum. Please see - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are references of Modi response on his personal platform violating ContextMatters for section "Indian Government response" of Citizenship Amendment Act 2019 ?

4. - I then went to Dispute Resolution Notice Board Forum as it is mentioned to part of Consensus building. But at that forum, there has been no constructive response. The involved editors did not show interest in discussion on the issue and the volunteer told me to go to Tea House Forum or back to Article Talk Page. Seriously, are people really interested in making this article non-biased ? It seems that the RS Noticeboard editors could understand the issue but the edit reverting users did not understand my edits and reverted them without understanding them !

I had specifically mentioned examples of 3-4 links which could be put in the article along with relevant content from those links. But the Article Talk page editor did not show interest in discussing in detail even though they reverted my edit within minutes. It is highly doubtful that they went through my edit properly before reverting my edit. Still, I posted on the Article Talk page. They are just asking me to go to several forums and not interested in discussing the issue.

5. - So, my question in short is that should there not be references and accompanying relevant text of media coverage on issue of FAQs on CAA released by Government of India in order to make the section less non-biased ? Request to please give detailed reasons along with opinion.

Kmoksha (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Kmoksha, Howdy hello! I'm afraid that the Teahouse does not mediate content disputes. You need to continue discussing this at the talk page. You have not fully explained your positions and discussed the issue. Dispute resolution is to be used only when discussion has been exhausted. I would caution you to listen to other editors, be civil, and to not be tenditious. Editing controversial issues, such as the CAA, have landed many editors in much hot water. If you cannot edit neutrally, you may wish to stay away from the subject.
Specific replies to the points you've raised:
2. Every claim in an article requires a citation. Where you reverted, the edit I saw had sections that were not supported by reliable citations. That is original research.
4. Making more, smaller edits, where you explain each step, will help with editors not reverting you. Making a 6k change at once is pretty drastic for most articles. If there is one thing wrong with it, all of the good stuff will also get reverted. Not all of your edits were bad. But editors took issue with part of it, and undid all of it.
5. Your question is worded so convolutedly I do not understand it. It is also not a neutral wording of the question. If you could refine it into something neutral and understandable, you could theoretically start a request for comment using it, which might be another avenue to solve the issues you're having.
If you wish me to followup further, please ping me or leave a note on my talk page. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
CaptainEek Thanks for your response. This is the diff of my edit - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Citizenship_(Amendment)_Act,_2019&diff=prev&oldid=932489305
Can you please point out one source link which was not appropriate and one edit which was appropriate in your opinion so that the things are more clear ? I will ensure that future edits are smaller in size. Unfortunately, the Talk Page editors just reverted my edit. But even on request, they did not specifically point what was wrong with my edit. They have directed me to several forums including this one. It would help me greatly if you could give your opinion on specific parts of the edit.
My question in point 5 of the thread opener, which I requested your opinion, is "Should the section 'Indian Government Response' of this article have content regarding official Government response on CAA like 'FAQs on CAA' ?"
Kmoksha (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Kmoksha, For sources: linking to a government's wordpress blog in the lead is not appropriate. We don't take governments at their word, because they don't have an incentive to give it to us straight. We instead trust news sources, who have an incentive to give us context, and investigate. As always, when talking about claims by a government, we attribute them clearly to the government, and do not give them too much weight. Also, a phrase like "Resorting to violence during protest is violation of a key fundamental duty of citizens" is very much original research and not neutral. Sources like the BBC or CNN are reliable however, and claims attributed to them are generally good.
Again, the Teahouse is not a place for mediation of content. But I will go over to the page in question and drop my opinion. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

My question on looking at a few small examples to do online citations seems to have disappeared. Fortunately I had saved it as a small rtf file on my desktop

At any rate I went and tried using the visual editor as Captain Eek suggested. Unfortunately I got the error message "This reference list is generated by a template, and for now can only be edited in source mode." When I tried to add my reference to the list. Now I have the impression I busted something in there. 500 Place D'Armes. Can I fix this with the visual editor? --AlainV (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

@AlainV: Yes, you can. But it's best if you delete the reference completely, and try again from scratch, (especially as you did add accessdate information outside of the reference.) And, yes, you can do that in Visual Editor. That said, VE is horrible to use for anything other than the simplest of references, and Source Editor is actually simpler. I have written some guidance notes which you can find at User:Nick Moyes/Easier Referencing for Beginners. I'd welcome feedback if you found them helpful or unhelpful. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll try your notes for the source editor. Thanks. --AlainV (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I used them and the whole thing went very fast since a reflist already existed. The notes were very helpful. --AlainV (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@AlainV: Glad it worked for you, and thank you for letting me know. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I am working on a draft page of Quaker abolitionist Yardley Taylor, but am having trouble uploading images. I own two daguerreotypes, of Yardley and Hannah Taylor, and have file images of the daguerreotypes, but the Wikipedia Image softwared doesn't let me upload the image files. A window opens up that says something about me perhaps not having copyright of the images, etc. What can I do to upload the images? Lee1101 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lee1101 Hello; you got an answer to this question at the Help Desk; please only use one method of seeking assistance. Thanks 331dot (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

David Pimentel

How do I start a page for this recently deceased scientist? I have a stub to start with in my sandbox. Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WDrit2 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

You'll find advice at WP:Your first article, and at Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Howdy - I'm not a member of Wikipedia, so I am asking for an edit. This is our village's page: Yellow Pine, Idaho Down at the bottom where it says "External Links" there is an out of date link. The link: http://www.ruralnetwork.net/~yptimes/ goes to an older website (not updated since 2004) I am the owner/author of that page. The new link should be: https://yellowpinetimes.wordpress.com/ I am the owner/author of that page and publisher of our local newspaper since Jan of 2000. I don't want to mess anything up by trying to make an edit myself. And I'm not sure if I am authorized to even make edits. Thank you - rrSue Yellow Pine Idaho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.170.177.47 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The page is currently not protected so you are authorized to edit the article. You can also discuss your proposed changes on the talk page of the article. It is accessed by clicking the link Talk next to Article. Interstellarity (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I see that the requested change has been made. Maproom (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you - rrSue

Citing a presentation

Currently I am working on the Akaflieg Stuttgart fs33 and while digging through the Akaflieg Stuttgart's archive, I stumbled upon a summary from a presentation. This raises a question: when citing information from a presentation, which format should I use in the 'References' section? The available options don't seem to fit quite well to the source material (the closest may possibly be conference, though admittedly I'm not sure). If I should take the format for a conference, does the location imply where the conference took place or where said conference proceeding can be found? Thanks in advance for the help! --Hardtofindausername (talk) 22:46, 05 January 2020 (UTC)

You wouldn't be citing the presentation, you'd be citing the summary. However, we cannot use your original research here. That's not what an encyclopedia is. Our sources must be accessible for others to access. An item in a company archive cannot be used here. John from Idegon (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Audette Exel

Hi Teahouse contributors and editors. I'm writing am article about businesswoman and philanthropist: Draft:Audette Exel. It was initially rejected because it didn't meet the formal tone expected of an encyclopedic article. Could you please help me see if there is any way I could improve the article? I have made NPOV changes, but looking for additional suggestions before resubmitting for review. Many thanks, Mk19Bu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mk19Bu (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mk19Bu: I would recommend starting over, following these instructions I've written for how to create articles that won't be rejected. It will save you a lot of rounds of asking what the problem is this time.
In short, all you need to do is find three or more independent professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are primarily and specifically about Exel but not connected with, affiliated with, nor dependent upon her. So no sources like this one. You take those sources, summarize them, then paraphrase that summary. Don't add anything else. This will ensure that the article starts off with a base that is neutral and shows only their notability. You can expand it with other (still reliable) sources after it is approved. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Can't edit article

Hi, every-time I try and improve the article for the city in which I live it gets jumped on by a few users that far, far away and they just change my edits back? They give all sorts of vexatious reasons as to why the edits need to be reverted like "advertising" just because I listed the names of some developments that are going on in the city (as if that hasn't been done before) and I added updated population data which then got entirely deleted and they said it "was not useful" well I am very frustrated because that is just their opinion and I think they are abusing their admin position. I do not see how stating some of the developments underway in the city and the fact it has been named one of the countries fastest growing cities as advertising? I just say "it has been named one of Australia's fastest growing cities" and provided legitimate sources but that still got deleted because I think the admin has a personal vendetta against my city. Townsville

I pretty much almost have no desire to use wikipedia again after this experience and I used to enjoy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karver91 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Karver91. There's no record of you ever having edited Townsville. Did you perhaps try and use another account to edit the article? Anyway, from the article's history it does look as if there's a disagreement over certain content involving multiple editors. While I cannot say for sure, it seems unlikely that this disagreement is due to any personal grudge being held by some editor against either you or the town, but rather something which has to do with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and how they apply to the content being disputed. It also appears that there might even be some inappropriate use of multiple accounts in an attempt to try and force someone's preferred version into the article, which is not a good thing at all. Generally, the best way to try and resolve a content dispute like this is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and engage in discussion on the article's talk page. While Wikipedia encourages us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles, relevant policy and guidelines also emphasis that the best way to try and resolve any disputes over content is through article talk page discussion. Moreover, just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should've been done. I don't see any attempts being made to try and discuss this matter at Talk:Townsville, so perhaps that's what you should try doing. There's no guarantee that will lead to the outcome you desire since the consensus may turn out to not be in favor of the changes you like to make, but ultimately these discussions are intended to be about figuring out what's best for Wikipedia in terms of relevant policies and guidelines and not what's best for an individual editor. As long as you assume good faith and avoid trying to turn the discussion into a battleground that pits one side against the other, you'll at least be doing your part to try and resolve things smoothly and amicably. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Etienne Henri Deffarges life

Hello !

Can someone please tell me why my article about Deffarges (Draft:Etienne Henri Deffarges) has been declined and how can i make it follow wikipedia rules ?

Kind regards ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AugustoPelle (talk • contribs) 01:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, AugustoPelle. At the top of the draft, the reviewer wrote the folllowing: "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies." You will need to address this, and to do so means removing all statements that cannot be supported by independent Reliable Sources. Nobody wants an encyclopaedia to look like a LinkedIn CV, as this one does. Instead, we want our articles to be based only upon verifiable sources that others have written about him. e.g. biographies in national media outlets. If there aren't any, he simply won't meet Wikipedia's  Notability criteria. I also note there are over 20 references, not one of which contains an online link, so I suspect you didn't know about the easy to use "Cite" templates available for adding references? I've written some guidance to help new editors add better inline citations - see WP:EASYREFBEGIN - but you only really need sources that other people have written. It is fine to add their own work to a 'Selected publications' section, but the absolute key focus for you is demonstrating that this person actually meets our Notability criteria, or there simply will never be an article about him here. Hoping this helps a bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Creating a New Wikipedia Entry

Hello,

I have in my sandbox a new page called Power Towers Ltd (User:Rfpuglia/sandbox) but I have no idea how to add it to wikipedia. Could you please help me.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfpuglia (talk • contribs)

@Rfpuglia: You can submit it for review by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. However do not do this yet as there is no chance of your article being accepted as it has no sources. An article can only be placed on Wikipedia if it has received substantial coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. You will need to find these and add them to the article first. I strongly suspect, from reading the article, that you will struggle to find suitable sources and this business is probably not sufficiently notable for a standalone article. You might be able to create a redirect to JLG Industries instead. Hugsyrup 10:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

which fraction should i use for 6½ ?

Calliotropis_limbifera contains 6½ whorls. i have never edited wiki page containing fractions. i have read MOS:FRAC, but i am undecided.

{{frac|6|1|2}} OR 6{{frac|1|2}}

which one of the above should i use ? Leela52452 (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452: I'd say follow MOS:FRAC to use {{frac|6|1|2}}, rendering as 6+1⁄2, since it produces somewhat different HTML. Another option is 6.5. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Leela52452: A couple bullets later, it says "In science and mathematics articles, mixed numbers are rarely used ... The use of {{frac}} is discouraged in favor of one of these styles: ... {{sfrac}}" It's not clear whether this means to only use {{sfrac}} when it's a scientific article and not a mixed number, but it does support mixed numbers. This gives you {{Sfrac|6|1|2}}, rendering ⁠6+1/2⁠ as an option. Maybe search and/or ask at WT:DATE, though either of the two templates or the decimal number is probably fine. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

can i use 2 and other similar codes in infoboxes

Caledonia,_New_York contains km² in infobox.

my query: can i use codes, for e.g. 2 anywhere in an article ?

Leela52452 (talk) 10:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Leela52452. The infobox code produces km<sup>2</sup> in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts. Do not use the special character '²'. {{sup|2}} produces <sup>2</sup>so that's OK. Infoboxes usually expect pure numbers without units. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Leela52452: Generally, yes, per MOS:UNITSYMBOLS. Note that the infobox actually uses km2, not the km² that was present (incorrectly; and which you fixed) in the Demographics section. I'll note there are three more of those '²' in the Geography section, if you want to fix them. You might also have a look at {{Convert}}, which can do the conversions and has lots of formatting options. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem in uploading Wikipedia Page

Dear Teahouse,

Hope you are well, compliments of the season

I am struggling to upload a Wiki page for our Business, and hope you can assist?

I am the Communications Officer at Finbond Mutual Bank and tasked with uploading the relevant page, which was submitted for consideration as per below

The sources are also quoted below the intended article as indicated below

WIKI FEEDBACK:

File:Wiki Speedy Deletion FMB.pdf

QUESTION:

I have already revamped the Article already from what it was to the following, which still does not seem to fit the Wiki requirements

Please advise whether it would be best to revise the article further, or do you have any other advice I may consider?

File:Wiki - FMB 7Nov2019.pdf
Finbond Wikipedia Page upload Attempt

Thanks & kind regards,

Charles van Onselen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesvanonselen (talk • contribs) 10:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesvanonselen: Have you read User talk:Charlesvanonselen#Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (November 7) and the other blue links within it? The short list is:
  • The references provided do not show that your company is notable (see the various links given regarding notability). Have multiple reliable sources, like newspapers or magazines, written articles about your company because they found it notable or interesting (not at your request, or in response to a press release issued by you)? That independent, in-depth, coverage is required to establish notability, which is required for an article to exist here.
  • Related to notability, have you read WP:PROMO, which is one of the things Wikipedia is not here to do, which is promote a business? There are also other sections of that page that may sound familiar, like WP:NOTDIRECTORY (a lot of people mistake Wikipedia for another company directory or link farm where they must have an entry or be conspicuous by their absence).
  • You are an employee of the company and are the wrong person to write an article about it because it is quite difficult to be neutral. If you insist, you must comply with WP:PAID, and be aware that everything will be scrutinized carefully for any sort of promotional language.
  • The formatting and content of the article is not appropriate. See other articles for similar companies, as well as our manual of style, for information on this issue.
Again, there are other links on your User talk:Charlesvanonselen ("talk page"), as well as the article draft in User:Charlesvanonselen/sandbox (your "sandbox") with more info. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Charlesvanonselen (edit conflict) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid your draft is a long way from being suitable for acceptance into Wikipedia. You seem to have a common misconception about what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not social media or other forum for businesses to tell the world about themselves. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage state about businesses that meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable business. Wikipedia is not interested in what a business wants to say about itself, only in what third parties say about it.
You also have what we call a conflict of interest and are a paid editor. Please review and comply with those policies; the latter is a Wikipedia Terms of Use requirement and mandatory. In order for you to be successful in writing a draft about your business, you essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources; most people in your position find this very difficult to do. If all you want to do is tell the world about your business, you should use social media, your own website, or other alternative forum where what you want to do is permitted. Feel free to show your superiors this message. 331dot (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

On 6 Jan, C added the Paid template to User page. One hopes that with all the guidance provided above, C can attempt to work via Articles for Creation to create a draft in proper Wikipedia format and proper referencing that can then be evaluated by a reviewer. Looking at existing articles about banks may help but is no guarantee, as there are articles that exist, but are flawed and worthy of being nominated for deletion. David notMD (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Need help about how and when to add or remove the tags ona Page

Hello! I recently edited the lead section of political parties of Japan. I wanted to know if it is okay enough? Can I remove the tag from that page now? Or does it need more improvement? Also, when I see articles through Random Article option many of them doesn't seem too good but are not tagged. Should I tag them? If yes, then how? Lightbluerain (talk) 16:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean List of political parties in Japan? - X201 (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lightbluerain: I took a look at List of political parties in Japan and I feel you summarized the key points of its contents so I think you are OK to remove the tag. If you come across a random article that has issues, please do not hesitate to tag them. If you have any further questions, please ask. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Lightbluerain, if you are not reasonably certain that you've addressed the issues, you're probably not the best person to untag it. And, if you are reasonably certain that an article requires a tag or requires tags removed, that's usually enough reason to do it, except in certain circumstances such as WP:CSD tag on the article you've created, WP:COI tags that refer to your contributions to the article, tags that are accompanied with talk page discussion that you've not addressed, etc. To tag an article, you can add templates manually or you can use WP:TWINKLE. To add templates manually, you need to know what those are. You can start at WP:TM or you can look at the code of the pages that have the tags to find out the templates that are used to generate them. Using Twinkle is much easier.
In the particular case in question, I feel like the lead should have more, as list articles should tell about the topic, the scope of the list and criteria for inclusion that prevents it from becoming an indiscriminate list. That said, if the article indeed lists all the Japanese political parties that there are, it is probably enough. If you're unsure, leave it for the others. Note that the article is also tagged for updating. Did you update the rest of the article too? If not, that tag should probably remain even if you remove the other one. The tag that asks for updating is duplicated in one of the sections, so if you can investigate and find out that that is the only section that needs updating, you can remove the tag from the top of the article. If the article needs updating at multiple places, you should remove the tag from that section since the article tag already covers that section as well. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks Usedtobecool and Interstellarity. Because i'm not certain about whether i did write a good lead section, I'm not removing the tag now. And, also Usedtobecool, i didn't update the article. So, ok. Thanks again. Lightbluerain (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Sarcastic jokes

So i would like to write an article about sarcastic jokes and thus wanted to know if its notable or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krupali Parmar (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Krupali Parmar Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I might first review the joke article to see if either what you want to do is already covered there, or could be added to that article, before attempting to write a standalone article about the subject. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Krupali Parmar! Sarcasm is WP:NOTABLE. Some examples covered in good sources could be a reasonable addition to that article, what WP:RS can you bring? However, on WP you can not write an article based on what jokes you consider sarcastic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So does that means i won't be able to write on that topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krupali Parmar (talk • contribs) 14:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Krupali Parmar No, you could not write about what you consider to be sarcastic. If you are a professional comedian and independent reliable sources write about your jokes, you might merit an article (but you shouldn't be the one to write it). If you just want to tell the world about what you consider to be a sarcastic joke, you could do so on social media like Facebook, or a personal blog. 331dot (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Krupali Parmar. Wikipedia is not interested in what you, or I, or any random person on the Internet, knows, or thinks, or believes, or has discovered, or worked out. It is interested in what published reliable sources have said. If you have found a published reliable source that has things to say about sarcastic jokes (not just examples, but actually saying something substantive about them), and you feel that what they say is not adequately covered in an existing article, then you are welcome to add a summary of what they say, citing the source. --ColinFine (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Is image streaming a notable topic

Hi,

I am thinking of writing an article on image streaming but I am not sure if it fits the wiki criteria. It is a fairly well-discussed topic, but it doesn't appear on many main news streams, but it isn't just confined to forums and blogs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mackyboy123 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


Hello, Mackyboy123. What is required is reliably published sources: please see WP:GNG. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


Speech Community article

The article at Speech community contains several unclear sentences. See, for example, these sentences in the section "Critique":

Thirdly, Chomsky and Labov's models made it clear that intra-personal variation is common. It also refine the choice of linguistic variant is often a choice madeto a specific speech context.

The force of these critiques with the concept of "speech communities" appeared because of the many contradictory. A part of scholars recommended abandoning the concept altogether, instead conceptualizing it as "the product of the communicative activities engaged in by a given group of people.

I am sure a careful reading would find other problematic sentences.

What does one do in such a situation? I have never edited a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LxShawn (talk • contribs) 2020-01-06T18:58:03 (UTC)

Hello there! Welcome to the Teahouse.
For unclear sentences, you can either edit them for clarity, grammar and tone yourself - or, if you're unsure, you can place the {{Clarify}} tag next to the unclear text. Be sure to avoid WP:DRIVEBY tagging, and place a short, new section on the article's Talk page about the problems raised by the clarify tags.
You can always ask for help on the Talk page - or failing that, at the Teahouse - if you want a specific edit checking over before you publish it, but as time goes on, it's expected that you'll WP:FIXIT by yourself - be bold in your edits, and gradually you'll gain confidence. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello, LxShawn, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for pointing this out: it is clear that this has got garbled. It may be that it was introduced by somebody with poor English skills, or directly from an automatic translator; or it might be a bungled edit. There are several things you can do about it, depending on how familiar you are with the material, and how much effort you want to spend.
  • If it is obvious what is meant, you can just edit it and correct it.
  • If it is not obvious, you can tag it with the tag {{unclear}}; or open a discussion on the article's talk page, or both. Neither of these will necessarily get it fixed, but somebody might notice and do something about it.
  • In a case like this, which is probably a bungled edit, you can go through the history ("Show History") to look for when the error was introduced, and see if you can see what happened, and how it is supposed to read. (There is a link to an external tool "find addition/removal" at the top of the History page, if it is not easy to find the right edit). That may let you reconstruct the right version (for example you can "edit" an old version just to copy the text, and paste it into the current version, if appropriate). If the offending edit is the most recent, you may be able to just roll it back (that doesn't appear to be the case here).
  • Finally, you could look for an appropriate WikiProject (perhaps WikiProject Linguistics?) and make a suggestion there.
Good luck! --ColinFine (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Adoption

Hello! I've been wanting to became adopted by an experienced user and I don't know how. Can anyone help me? UB Blacephalon (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Blacephalon, and welcome to the Teahouse. To be honest, I'd quite like to delete those templates which allow people to say they want to be adopted, as they tend to raise false hopes in people who deploy them. In my view, it is far better for someone seeking support, like you, to go in search of a like-minded editor who has already expressed a willingness to adopt someone, than it is to hope they will magically come to you. So, my advice is to look at the list of current people offering to adopt people, which you'll find at WP:AAU, specifically, Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters. In my book you appear to have enough edits behind you that you are clearly a committed editor, and aren't here to just to get one article created, only to disappear forever once you get what they want - so that's a real positive. That said, from a quick glance I don't think your editing interests and mine look like they'll coincide that much (and I'm currently unable to offer adoption right now as I'm quite busy in real life). Adoption/mentoring is a two-way process, so think about what sort of help and guidance it is that you need, look for a suitable adopter, check out their own recent edits and talk page activity and drop them a note explaining your interests, and identifying a few of the gaps you'd like to fill (anti-vandalism/article creation etc). Don't be disappointed if you get turned down right now - people differ in their time availability and interests. I hope this might have given you a useful start in the right direction. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the insight. Although it seems like a chasing game finding someone to adopt me, I will go out there and see who will adopt me. I just don't want to look like a person who keep nagging people and be an annoyance to people. I honestly agree with you on the fact that those templates won't do anything to those who want to be adopted. I've had that for a while now and no one even comments on my talk page. So thanks again for the advice as I will take it willingly. UB Blacephalon (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Blacephalon, Howdy hello! I'm CaptainEek, and I've been around a while and can show you the ropes. I would be down to adopt you! If you would like to be adopted by me, please leave a message on my talk page that explains what you'd like to get out of this adoption, and we can get going! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

What?

If a song needs more than charting (even peaking at number one), to have a page, what does the song need to be notable? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 08:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi CheatCodes4ever. See WP:NSONG. Majavah (t/c) 09:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
CheatCodes4ever, just to add to the comment above, the key point is that the three criteria in WP:NSONG, in particular #1 which is the one you refer to, do not give guaranteed notability. Rather, they indicate that it is likely that the song has received enough coverage to pass the WP:GNG, but the song (and not just the album) must still have been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. In addition, please note: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.. Hope this helps. Hugsyrup 09:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

So a song needs to be covered to have its own article? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 09:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Per WP:NSONG - songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. Hugsyrup 09:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, CheatCodes4ever. There is some ambiguity in the meaning of the word "covered" in this context. If by "covered" you mean that reliable independent sources have devoted significant written coverage to the specific song, then that is the classic definition of notability. If, on the other hand, you mean that other performers have recorded cover versions of the song, then that is a possible indicator of notability of the song, as it makes it more likely that reliable sources will also devote significant written coverage to the song. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 10:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
But does it need to be covered by other artists? CheatCodes4ever (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
No, that is not an absolute criterion for notability.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Two articles for the same individual

Hello, There are two articles for the same person and the pages are Khlaifa al-Khulaifi and Sultan al-Khalaifi, What do you suggest in this case. Thanks! Tarboun's (talk) 00:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tarboun's. Since multiple articles about the same subject aren't really needed, the first thing to do would be to make sure they are about the same subject and not just two similar but different subjects. These articles have different titles; so, this probably explains why nobody seemed to notice that there might be a problem up until now. If you're sure they are about the same person, the next thing to do would be to try and figure out which title should be used per WP:COMMONNAME. Sometimes a person may use one name for personal reasons, but then another for professional reasons; in other cases, they may have changed their name at some point to something other than there birth name. The details about a person's name can be included in an article, but there's no need to make separate articles for each name.
Of the two articles, Sultan al-Khalaifi seems to be the one created first, which means that's probably the article to try and use as the target article. If that name is OK per COMMONNAME, then any content in the other article which is different can most likely be WP:MERGED into the target article. You can probably be WP:BOLD in doing this, but you can also propose such a merge on the relevant article talk pages per WP:MERGEPROP. Since a merge either way may require a WP:HISTMERGE to preserve attribution, you might want to post something at WP:RFHM to see if this is necessary. The Khlaifa al-Khulaifi can then most likely just be blanked and redirected to "Sultan al-Khalaifi" since this will preserve attribution for that page and it shouldn't necessarily need to be deleted.
Things get more complicated if the COMMONNAME is actually "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" since you're basically going to be merging content the other way which might not be ideal. In this case, you may have to still merge from "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" to "Sultan al-Khalaifi", have a history merge done by an admin, have "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" deleted per WP:MAD to free up the name, and then WP:MOVE "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi". You cannot MOVE "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to the other name as long as that page exists, and I'm not sure if it's OK to just merge "Sultan al-Khalaifi" to "Khlaifa al-Khulaifi" because there may be issues with the respective page histories in trying to do that. If you want to do it this way, you probably shouldn't be BOLD and instead ask about it at WP:AN or WP:RFHM just to make sure it's OK to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tarboun's and Marchjuly: It looks like "Khlaifa" is mis-spelled, too (it should be "Khalifa"). Is "Sultan" his given name or an WP:HONORIFIC/title? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1 and Marchjuly: Thanks for your fast reply, The merge was already done by MSGJ and I want to thank him for that. the spelling is correct there are two names Khalifa and Khlaifa and Sultan is his given name so, I would suggest to move the article with the name: Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi. Thanks Tarboun's (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Tarboun's: I asked about this at WP:AN#Discussion at WP:THQ#Two articles for the same individual and Martin merged the articles. You should be able to be WP:BOLD and move the page to the correct title since Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi doesn't seem to exist. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Marchjuly: It's clear for me now why did he merge the two articles. Article move to Sultan Khlaifa al-Khulaifi and thanks for your support. Best Tarboun's (talk) 22:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Updating a page that isn't correct

Hi all,

I've tried editing a page that is currently not up to date and have provided sources for each of them multiple times. Each time I submit it, the page goes back to the backdated version within 24 hours. Can you help me to make these edits in a way that sticks? I hate seeing a page so off from what it is now (and has been for the last 2-3 years.)

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogitraveler (talk • contribs) 04:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yogitraveler. It's not clear from your post which "page" you're referring to, but your contribution's history only shows you having made two edits: the one for you post above and one to the article Forrest Yoga back on May 23, 2019. Are you referring to this edit you made to "Forest Yoga". That edit was reverted by another editor named Chiswick Chap with this edit with an edit summary stating "Reverted good faith edits by Yogitraveler (talk): Rv, really sorry but promotional tone is not suitable for encyclopedia".
This is something that happens fairly often on Wikipedia in that one editor is bold in making a change to an article, but another editor reverts the change because they feel it's not in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The thing to do in this case would be to discuss your reasons for wanting to make the change at Talk:Forrest Yoga to see what others may think. If you're able to establish a consensus in favor of the change, then it will be made; if not, it won't. When you discuss things, you should try and address the concerns that led to the edit being reverted, in this case namely a promotional tone.
Try and understand that although Wikipedia wants make sure article content is accurate, content needs to be verifiable and neutrally worded in accordance with WP:5PILLARS. Basically, Wikipedia is more interested in what reliable sources that are independent of the subject are saying about the subject then what the subject might be saying about itself. This doesn't mean that the "Forest Yoga" official website cannot be used as a source, but that it needs to be used carefully, particularly since some of the content seems to be medical related. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Hermetic (album)

Hello, I created the article Hermetic as part of Magne Furuholmen's discography. The article got moved to the drafts section since there are very few references. Unfortunately the release is very old and most of the info I saved back then on my hard drive is no longer available online. How can I improve it? Are all of the official releases suitable for Wiki? How can I make an article better or suitable in this case? Thanks for your help Cat italia (talk) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Cat italia! Unfortunately, not all albums (or any work for that matter) are notable. That said, sources do not need to be online, nor do they need to be in English. All they need to be, is reliable. If you think you can find independent, reliable sources with significant coverage on the album, you can continue to work on the draft. Otherwise, it may be better to just move on from it, while keeping an eye out for sources that you might come across in the future. In the meantime, you can create a Redirect to the artist's article from the album's title. If you feel like the album might deserve an article of its own even though one can not be created at this time, you can add the template {{Redirect with possibilities}} to the redirect page to mark it as such. Hope this is helpful. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Usedtobecool! I've added to the draft links to the album on both Spotify and Google Play. I noticed that for some artists there are links to such sites for specific songs (I saw a couple of iTunes links on Lady Gaga's discography). Do you think those could be ok? Cat italia (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Cat italia, they are mostly not acceptable, as far as I know. In limited circumstances, they could be though. In any case, they do not add to notability and therefore won't help the draft get published in article space. I am out of my depths on this, I'm afraid. You could wait for someone knowledgeable to hopefully see this; or you might have a better luck asking questions like these at WT:ALBUMS. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
For a meanwhile published draft—record review time 45 minutes—I checked the WP:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice, and this project apparently allows Spotify links in WP:MUSICSTREAM, but does not mention that again in WP:ALBUMSEL. Wild guess, if there's no template for external Spotify links, stay away from it. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete extra account

How do I go about deleting an extra account "Osvaldo Valdes Lopez"? Thank you! ovA_165443 (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Osvaldo valdes 165443: Accounts can't be deleted. Just stop using it. RudolfRed (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
If you can still login to your other account you can replace the content of the user page with #REDIRECT [[USER:Osvaldo valdes 165443]]. Note why you did that in the edit summary, e.g., add a new section on the user talk page explaining your plan first, and link to this section in the edit summary for the redirect.
In theory you can also use your current account to edit the other user talk and user pages, but folks could consider that as suspicious and revert it. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Deletion of Page

Hello. I recently came across a celebrity page that false and inaccurate information. I am not the person who wrote it, but would like to have it deleted. Is there a way for it be deleted?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.211.221 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 173.63.211.221. You can find out more about why some articles are deleted at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, but generally articles are only deleted when there's a consensus established that there are too many problems to fix through editing or that the subject doesn't satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Articles aren't necessarily deleted because they contain false or otherwise incorrect content; in such cases, Wikipedia encourages us to try and fix the problem instead if it is at all possible to do so. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi IP editor. Welcome to the Teahouse. Just to add one thing: If the information is seriously wrong and harmful - eg unsubstantiated accusations or allegations of criminality, then you may immediately delete that text (clarifying your reasons in an edit summary). We can arrange to get anything seriously inappropriate permanently deleted. But just a vague story that paints someone in a poor light wouldn't fall under this. Let us know the article title and your concerns, and someone will take a look - or you can post concerns on that article's own talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternatives for {{navbox}}

I want to know if there is anything that can serve navigational purposes (just like {{Navbox}}) but can be displayed on mobile view. The Lord of Math (Message; contribs) 02:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories are supposed to work on any device. They are technically very different, e,g., you cannot "watch" the items added to or removed from a category, but fine for the purposes of navigation, cf. Help:Categories and WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

This person above was added to notable alumni lists of four institutions. I removed the entries because there was no reliable source. After removing the person on one of the lists, I made this comment here on the Talkpage about sourcing. The person was readded with a source based on the website of the person from their promoter. Also, there were comments about me having "a close personal bias", edit warring and that the source used for readding the person was reliable. Any recommendations on how I should proceed? Thanks. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

FieldMarine It seems to me that you have correctly interpreted policy, have correctly followed WP:BRD, and have done your best to explain your reasoning to some editors who don't appear to wish to listen to it. The best step forward is to get some additional eyes on the discussion, which you have achieved by posting here but you could also look at posting on a relevant wikiproject, or WP:3O. Hopefully the involvement of additional experienced editors will help settle the debate on one side or another. Ultimately, if users refuse to abide by whatever consensus establishes itself, you can take the matter to WP:ANI for administrator assistance. I have also weighed in on the matter myself. Hugsyrup 13:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate the feedback, support and recommendations for the path forward. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Example Talk:List of Ohio State University people#, because I needed several minutes to figure out what you are talking about based on your recent contributions. [[]] does not exist, is apparently a stuntman, and I'd always remove red links and plain text persons from lists first, and consider "notable without article" later, it's too unlikely for most practical purposes. –84.46.52.210 (talk) 13:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

how to use convert for population density for given values

Calakmul contains text "1000/km² (2564 per square mile)" and "420/km² (1076 per square mile)".

can i use {{convert|XX|PD/sqmi|PD/km2}} for the above. if so, how ?

or simply use 1000/km{{sup|2}}

Leela52452 (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I assume the problem is related to either specifying which unit is abbreviated, in which case Template:Convert#Unit_name_or_symbol_(abbreviation):_1_pound_or_1_lb? answers, or how to choose the conversion precision, in which case you should read Template:Convert#Rounding:_100_ft_is_30_m_or_30.5_m_or_30.48_m?
  • {{convert|1000|PD/km2|PD/sqmi|abbr=in}} → 1,000/km2 (2,600 inhabitants per square mile)
  • {{convert|1000|PD/km2|/sqmi|abbr=in}} → 1,000/km2 (2,600 per square mile)
  • {{convert|1000|PD/km2|/sqmi|abbr=in|sigfig=4}} → 1,000/km2 (2,590 per square mile) (but only use this if you really need the extra precision)
In particular, I note that the conversion you copied is not correct: 1000/km2 is not equal to 2564/mi2 at the precision implied by the latter number's significant digit. TigraanClick here to contact me 14:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1042&oldid=1251196924"