Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1103

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Teahouse. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page.

Archive 1100

Archive 1101

Archive 1102

→

Change Talking Tom and Friends logo

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

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

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

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

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

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

And would the logo we are talking about be eligible for copyright in Slovenia (which is a EU member), which is where Outfit7 (the franchise owner) is based? The page at commons doesn't say anything about Slovenian logos though they do discuss logos in general, but I noticed that Google Chrome's logo, which is more creative IMO, is not eligible for copyright (presumably because Google is American and the threshold of originality is higher there?). 45.251.33.137 (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

According to c:COM:TOO Slovenia, Solvenia's threshold of originality depends "field of creativity", but I'm not sure how to exactly apply that to File:Talking Tom and Friends logo.svg, the logo currently shown on the series's official website or even to File:Outfit7 Logo 2018.svg. Moreover, three countries are listed as the "country of origin" for the series and none of them is Slovenia; so, maybe Outfit7 doesn't own the copyright on the logo or Slovenia isn't the country of origin. If you want to find out more about this you can ask about them at c:COM:VPC; the file's are uploaded to Commons so there's no much Wikipedia can do about them.

As I posted above The concept of threshold for originality varies from country to country; some like the US have a comparitively high threshold, while others like the UK have a comparitively low threshold. So, whether a simple text logo is going to be considered eligible for copyright protection depends upon the laws of the country of origin and how the courts have ruled. The US has a pretty high threshold of originality compared to some other countries (e.g. it doesn't apply a sweat of the brow type of rationale to assessing creativity); so, many logos for US companies (see c:COM:TOO United States) are considered ineligible for copyright protection), but these same logos might be treated differently from a TOO standpoint by other countries.

FWIW, people are uploading files to Commons all of the time, mostly in good faith, and probably none of them actually contact a copyright lawyer and go to court before doing so. They either upload the file based upon what they have been able to find out on their own or from others about file licensing or simply don't bother to worry about at all. So, lots of files are uploaded to Commons which eventually end up deleted for one reason or another. Sometimes the only way to kinda sort things out is to actually go to Commons and start a discussion about a particular file. Even if these three files weren't OK for Commons, they certainly could be uploaded locally to Wikipedia as non-free content if you wanted to be really cautious, but they should even be OK to be uploaded to Wikipedia as {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} because they would be {{PD-logo}} in the US even if they weren't in their countries of origin. Commons requires content to be freely licensed or PD in both the United States and in its country of origin; Wikipedia only requires the former if the content would be considered PD in the US under the principle of national treatment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I suppose that the logo update can wait since the old logo is still rather similar to the new one (and I'm too busy). As for the absence of Slovenia from the country of origin, it may be because someone keeps on adding America as a country of origin and maybe quietly removing Slovenia because the actual production is not done in Slovenia (the only American thing about the series is the actors' nationalities and the pronunciation of whatever words they say, otherwise it's a fully European series, as it is broadcast in the UK, was initially animated in Austria and is currently animated in Spain). I've readded it since Outfit7 does own the franchise and has never sold it as far as Google can say. 45.251.33.137 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I found out just now that the Talking Tom and Friends YouTube channel has a different variation of the new logo (white text on red background. The channel can be accessed by going to any YT video given as episode reference in the episode table at List of Talking Tom and Friends (TV series) episodes). Just thought I might as well point it out if Lkas123 is watching this and can upload the logo. 45.251.33.161 (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

editing of wikipedia pages

editing

I have tried to edit the page on alpha-synuclein (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-synuclein) but it does not seem possible to add or move references. Some references are in the wrong place or not present, such as the paper where the protein from human brain was first named (Jakes et al. FEBS Letter 1994), where its genes SNCA was first named (Spillantini et al. Genomics 1995) and the papers where for the first time alpha-synuclein was described in Lewy bodies (Spillantini et al. Nature 1997) and in the filaments that form them in Parkinson's disease and Dementia with Lewy bodies (Spillantini et al. PNAS 1998) and in the cytoplasmic inclusions of multiple system atrophy (Spillantini et al. Neurosci Lett 1998). The paper describing how the existence of a subgroup of dopaminergic neurones in the substantia nigra depend on alpha-synuclein presence (Gracia-Reitbock et al. Exp Neurol. 2013) and that in a transgenic mouse and human brain aggregation of alpha-synuclein at the synapse leads to SNARE protein redistribution (Garcia-Reitbock et al. Brain 2010) are not cited among other references. I would like to edit the alpha-synuclein page to acknowledge this work with the references. 11mgs (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC) 11mgs (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse 11mgs. Looking at your edit history, you may have a conflict of interest regarding some of these additions but other than that I'm not sure why you have had any problems since I was able to go into the Source Editor for Alpha-synuclein as usual. I suggest you make very specific edit requests on the Talk page of the article using the template {{edit request}} if you do indeed have a conflict of interest and work with others who will pick up your suggestions. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi 11mgs. If you are the subject of the biographical article you have been editing, you do have a COI in editing that. But so long as you don't seek to highly promote your own works—essentially abide by the guidance at WP:SELFCITE—you are exactly the type of person we need to help with article on topics like Alpha-synuclein, a subject matter expert, and have no disabling COI in doing so, as reflected in guideline section I linked. This seems especially true as to nuances in articles on complex science topics, where the details, what to focus on, knowing where the sources are, etc., are something often far more difficult to get "right" for non-experts, than it is for general topics. Though it's difficult to tell from your question what exact problem you had with accessing and editing the references in the protein article, I think you might be facing a common misunderstanding about where the references are located and how they propagate, which misunderstanding we have a canned template to explain. For that reason, immediately below, after the end of this post, I am going to insert that template ({{Edit refs}}), with its explanation, and hope it addresses the issue. If it does not, can you please explain the problem you had with a bit more specificity? By the way, editing here has a bit of a learning curve. I would suggest starting out with taking a careful tour through the Wikipedia:Tutorial to get some sea legs. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

When you are reading an article and see a references section near the bottom populated by a series of numbered citations, you might think that if you edit the page, you will see those citations typed in that section and be able to edit them. However, usually what you will see is markup similar to this:

==References== {{reflist}} or <references />

In that case, the text of citations is actually in the body of the article, directly next to the statements or paragraphs the citations support, using <ref>...</ref> tags, which display when you are reading an article as footnotes (e.g.^[1]^[2]). The template code shown above in the references section collates and displays all of the citations within the article in a numbered list in which the numbers correspond to the footnote numbers in the text. By clicking on the ^{^} symbol next to a citation display, you can easily find exactly where in the body of the article the citation text appears in order to edit it. For more detail, please see Help:Referencing for beginners, Help:Introduction to referencing, and Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Fuhghettaboutit, I was trying to add a reference at the end of this sentence: "It was later determined that NACP was the human homologue of Torpedo synuclein. Therefore, NACP is now referred to as human alpha-synuclein." ref: Jakes R., Spillantini M.G., Goedert M.: Identification of two distinct synucleins from human brain. FEBS Letters 345, 27-32, 1994. PMID: 8194594.

and to add after ref 73 two other references showing for the first time alpha-synuclein in filaments in PD, DLB and MSA (Spillantini M.G., Crowther R.A., Jakes R., Hasegawa M., Goedert M.: α-Synuclein in filamentous inclusions of Lewy bodies from Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 95, 6469-6473, 1998. PMID:9600990); Spillantini M.G., Crowther R.A., Jakes R., Cairns N.J., Lantos P.L., Goedert M.: Filamentousα-synuclein inclusions link multiple system atrophy with Parkinson’s disease and dementia with Lewy bodies. Neuroscience Letters 251, 205-208, 1998. PMID:9726379.

I did not know it was a COI to add something openly available in the literature if one looks for it... However, all this is too complicated, thanks for letting me know, if somebody else knowing the history one day wants, can change it...

FYI

– Merging with above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

1-I have edited the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Grazia_Spillantini updating it, but several of the changes I made have remained in red writing not black, how can I make the writing black? 11mgs (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@11mgs: Hello, and Welcome to the Teahouse. Its because you have surrounded them with souble sqare brackets ([[Example]]), which tells the software to behind Wikipedia to make that text an internal link. Internal links on Wikipedia are red if the target page doesn't exist. YOu can turn them black by removing the double square brackets around them. Victor Schmidt (talk) 10:51, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Victor for the suggestion, I have done it and now the writing is black. However how can I make everything blue like the writing already there, and also how I can add a title after FRS and FMedSci, I would like to add UOSI but does not show up. 11mgs (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see my comment in the Section above. If you are Maria Grazia Spillantini (as is fairly clear from your edit history) you should not make any more additions directly to the article but only via edit requests on its Talk Page. To answer your latest question, links will be blue if the article or reference text from a URL exists, as with "Maria Grazia Spillantini" here in my second sentence, while Maria Grazia now is red since that name is not used for any article. You can't make "everything blue" as we don't use coloured text except to indicate links (or lack of links). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Michael, I was trying to move a reference to the correct place but yes, I guess I have a COI just that the work is not properly cited or better history seems missed by who wrote the page. I do not know who edited it or who can include also our papers 2.99.170.88 (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As with any Wikipedia page, the "View History" tab shows each edit made to a page, 11mgs. The recent editors are the ones likely to have the page (and associated Talk Page) on their watchlist and hence are the ones who would notice your edit request. Or you could use the "alert" mechanism to politely ask them to take a look at your request, in the same way as I've mentioned you here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Tea house

What is the Wikipedia tea house about? and how do I start a discussion in the tea house? Asibazu (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Asibazu, the Teahouse is a place for new users to get help. They can ask any questions they might have about editing or reading Wikipedia, and some experienced editors often called "hosts" will try to answer their questions. Giraffe ^{(who stole my "r"?)} 08:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you host Girrefe, Now I understand better Asibazu (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Asibazu Discussions about specific articles can take place on the Talk pages of those articles. Each editor also has a Talk page, so there can be direct communication. David notMD (talk) 13:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Edited article

I recently edited the article Pinus pseudostrobus, and am wondering whether it is good currently. One problem I am having is that the refs are showing up as (3)(2), rather than (2)(3). Is this an issue, or is it ok? If the article is not good currently, could someone tell me how I could improve it? Abies balsamica (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Abies balsamica: Welcome to the Teahouse! I reordered the references for you, but the order doesn't really matter. Could you please add some captions for the gallery photos? Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, Abies balsamica! To add to the above, references being numbered out of order is not a problem, but if you wish to keep them in ascending order (some editors do) then you can just swap the order. The first reference to occur on the page is numbered 1, the second 2 etc. but if a reference is repeated then the same number is used. Anyway, the actual issue with the reference formatting (but it's only a tiny one!) is that we don't use punctuation before references, which GoingBatty also fixed. As for the article, maybe others can tell you more because I'm not a subject expert, but the addition of the references is definitely good, and the other changes look like an improvement to me. Hopefully Casliber will not mind a ping, as I think they're the go-to editor in this area. — Bilorv (talk) 00:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm....my ears are burning...let me take a look....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I add captions to the images? Sorry- I'm a new user and the code can be confusing. Abies balsamica (talk) 13:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abies balsamica: There's more information at Help:Pictures § Thumbnails (with an example), but basically there's a parameter that generates a caption if none of the recognised keywords for size and orientation are used for it. Alternatively, if you turn on the visual editor to add a new image, you can click on "Insert" along the toolbar and select "Images and media" from the dropdown menu. There you can select what image to use and click "Use this image" in the top-right corner to select it. The following interface has a field to add a caption. You can also get to the same screen by selecting an image and clicking "Edit" in the associated popup that shows up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abies balsamica: I added two captions so you could see how its done. Feel free to improve the captions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence about introduced to New Zealand has been there since 2010 - never referenced. David notMD (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Birthday Committee

What type of page is Wikipedia:Birthday Committee, is it essay or information page or any other? If I want to create something like that then how to Create? ExclusiveEditor (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor I guess the best way to describe that page would be to describe it as a project page. Are you saying you want to create your own Birthday Committee? 331dot (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

331dot No I don't want to create a birthday committee but I want to create a list of basic questions with simple and reliable answers of Wikipedia which will help new editors. This would consist of multiple pages as 10 question would be on a single page and questions would obviously be more. Also I want this list of Questions and Answers lists to be edited by all and everyone to add new question and answers. Therefore this would be not only for my personal use but for all of us. I have created a liitle on my subpages, like Index and first page and members (I want members). But all of these is on my subpages but I want it to reach everyone which is not possible on subpages.ExclusiveEditor (talk) 08:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ExclusiveEditor So you want to create something like Frequently Asked Questions? 331dot (talk) 08:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

331dot Yes!— Preceding unsigned comment added by ExclusiveEditor (talk • contribs)

ExclusiveEditor I'd suggest that before attempting to create something new and perhaps duplicative that you offer any changes you feel are needed on the talk pages for the FAQ. 331dot (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Where can I help?

Hi everyone :) I'm new here and still finding my feet... I was wondering whether there's a place where one can be taken (at random maybe?) to articles that need a bit of love (copy-editing for instance). Thanks! FESxam (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@FESxam: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to help! Check out Wikipedia:Task_Center for some ideas on how to help out. There is also WP:TYPO for finding and fixing typos, and also WP:GUILD for copyediting tasks. Finally, you can just hit the "random article" link in the side bar and you may land on an article that needs some work. RudolfRed (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@FESxam: Welcome to the Teahouse (and by extension, Wikipedia). You may want to check out the The Wikipedia Adventure as an interactive tutorial, SuggestBot for requests, and the Guild of Copy Editors as a relevant WikiProject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome FESxam! As Tenryuu said above, you'll want to start with The Wikipedia Adventure, however I have noticed that it tends to be rather buggy so if there are any problem, ask here and people will point you to the right place. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu @Blaze The Wolf @RudolfRed Thanks a lot for the tips and the warm welcome! I've adopted a typo already ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FESxam (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Link to pdf problem

I am trying to correct a pdf link on my own Wiki page. It previously linked to two articles my wife and I wrote about Truman Capote and his story Hand-carved Coffins. But somehow this link was changed to an article which had nothing to do with mine. I am trying to replace this incorrect link with the correct one which is this: url=http://www.reprints.longform.org/hoax-truman-capote-secret. But after inserting the link and saving it, I still can't click through the link to the article. Can someone advise me what I am doing wrong please? If you look at the site, the link I am trying to edit is the second one under the heading Published Articles - HOAX: the secrets that Truman Capote took the grave. Many thanks, Peter Gillman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Gillman Petercg (talk) 13:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Petercg: Welcome to the Teahouse! That link doesn't work for me when I paste it in my browser, so please check the link.

More concerning, however, is that you are editing your own autobiography, adding awards and other information without independent reliable sources. Please read WP:AUTO, and please declare your conflict of interest by adding {{UserboxCOI|Petercg}}. In the future, please do not edit the article about you. Instead, you may post suggestions at Talk:Peter Gillman with the {{request edit}} template, and another editor will help you. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding Jessica Guo

Hi there, I'm asking here as I can't find within the many admin pages what the best next step is here (I don't want to revert things myself). On Jessica Guo, information has been added by a user with a history of changes that have been reverted (both on this article and on Jean-Paul Banos). Currently, it claims "police have discovered her secretly training at fencing club, against provincial restrictions" which is unsourced and also troublesome, as this is the biography of a young person. What would be the best next step for this claim to be undone (keeping in mind Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring)? Simeon (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Simeon: I agree about the BLP violation. It's good practice to initiate a discussion on the article's talk page to let them know that they're supposed to discuss with you. If you've tried to discuss but they're refusing to engage, then it's perfectly acceptable to go to WP:AN3. ◢ Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help to improve my first article draft

Hi All,

I have created my first ever article and now seeking help from all experienced editor here to guide me further what else shall I do to improve it further. Here is the draft for your kind reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Samira_Gupta

Please, help me out to better understand the Wiki platform and mistakes if I have made any in order to improve my draft further.

Looking forward to your prompt response. Thanks in advance! Aartisingh85 (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aartisingh85: welcome to the Teahouse. It looks like that was not only your first-ever draft but your first-ever edit to Wikipedia; it is always better for a new editor to start by editing and improving existing articles, for instance by checking references or adding new information based on reliable sources.

Concerning the draft you created, it is about a person but does not show how the person is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. It has no reliable sources. There are three references to press releases (and two of them are the same press release, so it's actually just two sources). Press releases do not show notability, and should be avoided as far as possible since they are usually meant to advertise or promote a topic. The fourth reference is to Goodreads, a crowdsourced website which is also not a reliable source. Finally, the tone of the draft is promotional. It is not always easy to write in a neutral style, but it is crucial to do so on Wikipedia. That is one of the reasons why it is better to start by making small-scale edits to existing articles. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: Thanks for your prompt response, well I have got your point here about the tone of the draft, I gone through it again, and find that it's getting promotional, and I will definitely try to get this fix by changing the tone of the draft to neutral. Also, please let me know what kind of notability would be exactly required here, I mean in terms of news or something, as you have mentioned that press releases are not countable, then what kind of source exactly needed? Since, I have found these sources so far which I thought must be reliable, but as you suggested now, I'll try to come up with the right citations then. Please suggest Aartisingh85 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Used to have old account

Thanks for inviting me to the Tea House. I used to have an old account that I have created sometime 2011 that I cannot seem to remember. I went to the page or pages I created and It already appears that somebody created the same page on a later date. Is there a way I can recover the account? Palakasan (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Palakasan. I'm not sure what you mean by I went to the page or pages I created and It already appears that somebody created the same page on a later date. I don't think it's possible another person to take over your account unless you give them your password or the account is otherwise WP:COMPROMISED. Can you provide a link to the other page or at least the name of the other page? If you simply don't remember the password for the other account, then perhaps WP:LOSTPASSWORD will explain what you need to do. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

A username can occasionally be usurped with help from a global renamer if there were no substantial edits in the old account, but I'm not also sure what the question being asked here is. Do you mean that you created an article (something in the mainspace, for example the page Coffee) and you now see in the page history that somebody else created it? That could be the result of a page being deleted (for instance, as the result of a deletion discussion) and later recreated. If you name the page(s) in question then we can likely tell you something more specific. — Bilorv (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi I have visited the pages I remember I created, it appears that my old account was 2008 and I last used n 2016. I don't want to post the pages I created here for privacy issues. I also don't know how to reply here. I just used the edit box, it that OK? Palakasan (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You have replied correctly. Are you asking if you can regain access to your old account? If you did not add an email address to your old account to recover the password, and cannot remember the password, you cannot regain access to it, as no one else has that information. If you wish, you can identify your current account as a successor to your old account on your user page("I am Palakasan, I previously used Account1234 but no longer have access"). If you regained access to your old account, it won't change the fact that someone else created the page you have at issue, but you may certainly edit it. As noted, it is hard to say more than that without knowing the pages in question(which you certainly do not need to reveal, just saying). 331dot (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that Palakasan means they've forgotten their old user name, and tried to find it by looking at the page histories of articles they remember creating. I suppose it's possible those articles were deleted and then recreated by another editor. If I had the article names, as an administrator I could check that. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

what will be the root cause for not labeling inward register in audit

45.116.1.190 (talk) 16:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! This page is for asking questions about Wikipedia. Does your question relate to a Wikipedia article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

root cause for not labeling inward register in audit 45.116.1.190 (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Repeating the exact text you posted before does not provide any clarity. If your question related to a specific Wikipedia article, could you please provide a link to the article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

April 1st Fun

Is there anything fun going on at Wikipedia for April 1st? I know there are some jokes on the front page but I don't know where to find all of the fun April 1st stuff. Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Tyrone Madera, most of the in-house festivities can be found here - enjoy them while they last :-) Pahunkat (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tyrone Madera: Refer to Wikipedia:April Fools/April Fools' Day 2021‎‎, thanks. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 16:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Aseleste & Pahunkat, thank you both :-) Tyrone Madera (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

And as always, remember April 1st still has some rules. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Aydin Onac Wikepedia entry

Courtesy link: Aydin Önaç

Hi I recently made some edits to the above Wikepedia entry. Apologies if I did something wrong, but you have removed ALL the edits I made. Perhaps you could explain exactly which edit caused the problem? many thanks David David J Churchill (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@David J Churchill: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears that the slew of edits you made to the page seem to promote Önaç, and removed content that talked about him as a controversial figure and referenced. Wikipedia doesn't approve of puffery and requires reliable sources for content. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for the feedback. A 'slew' of edits and 'puffery' seem rather harsh and subjective terms. However, I shall try to stick to factual, objective details in future entries. David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David J Churchill (talk • contribs) 13:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Whoever reverted David J Churchill's edits is describing Aydin Önaç as "disgraced" in Wikipedia's voice in the first sentence. This is a glaring violation of our policy on Biographies of living people which I have removed and which should not be restored. I am personally unfamiliar with the issues, but to my mind, the article focuses too much on alleged controversies rather than neutrally describing this man's whole life and career in context. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed], [who?], and etc.

How can I just edit that minor part without messing up the article? Fari Dark (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Your question isn't entirely clear; we can give a better answer if you clarify (e.g. what do you mean by "that minor part"?)

The way you edit an instance of ^{[citation needed]} or ^[who?] is to look through the article source for the relevant instance of

{{citation needed|...}}

or

{{cn|...}}

or ~~whatever the template name is for ^[who?]~~

{{who|...}}

then edit text between the brace pairs as appropriate.

To add a ^{[citation needed]} or ^[who?], it's the same process as with any template; put in

{{template name|options}}

(for ^{[citation needed]}, the template name is

cn

or

citation needed

~~I don't know what it is~~ for ^[who?] it is

who

). Xnft (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fari Dark: For a new editor, lets try to make that simple. If there is a citation needed in the text and you believe you can provide a valid ref, click on edit for the section that has the cn, remove the cn, and add the ref(s) there. When properly done, a number will be generated where you added a ref, and the ref itself will be added to the numbered list of references. I turned your mis-formated attempt into a ref, although no idea where it belongs in the text. David notMD (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for adding me, what happens from here?

Thanks for welcoming me to the tea room. I have tried to publish my article but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere, does anyone know how I can track its progress? SomeGuyFromEngland (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SomeGuyFromEngland, and welcome to the Teahouse. I have added a header to your sandbox User:SomeGuyFromEngland/sandbox which allows you to submit it for review. I can see you have put a lot of work into it; but it needs further work on the references: see CITE. The problem is that your references are bare URLs, and point to a aggregation site. Your first citation is not actually to some family history site, but to a particular page in (presumably) a real, published book, that I guess is called "Our Own Sevier ... (etc)". What the citation should tell the reader is the title, publisher, date, author, (and ideally ISBN if there is one) of this book, and the page number cited. A link such as you have provided is a useful convenience, but it is not an essential part of the citation. Part of the reason for giving a full citation is so that the reader (and, more to the point, a reviewer) can quickly judge the likely relevance and reliability of the source: is it published by a reputable publisher? How old is it? Does it appear to be written or published by somebody close to the subject of the article? I believe that a list of a hundred bare-URL references is likely to be much less attractive to a reviewer than 100 well-formatted citations, so as it stands, your draft is likely to stay on the heap for longer before somebody can face picking it up to review. Also, Wikipedia has a very strong preference for secondary sources: I suspect that quite a few of your sources are primary sources: these are permitted, but can be used only in limited ways. --ColinFine (talk) (another guy from England) 21:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

How to add pictures on a person's bibliography

Kairo owethu (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Note: Same question aked by same person below at #How to add pictures on a person's bibliography_2. Please respond there to avoid redundant or fragmentted answers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

OP has been indefinitely blocked per WP:NOTHERE; so, nothing further needed here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

HOW DO I NOMINATE A PAGE FOR DELETION FOR APRIL FOOLS DAY FrontRoadGirls (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't and trying to do so is probably going to seen as disruptive by some Wikipedia administrators which may lead to a warning, but could also possibly lead to a block. Finally, please try to avoid typing in all capital letters since doing so is often interpreted as "shouting" at someone. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:FOOLS allows it with some restrictions. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CREATING A PAGE

HOW DO I CREATE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE? Yodeddy (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Yodeddy! Article creation requires being autoconfirmed. If I were you, I would stick to editing articles for now, as it is hard to stick to Wikipedia's hundreds of guidelines, especially if you don't know many of them. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As explained in Help:Your first article, and of course with CapsLock turned off. -- Hoary (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yodeddy. First of all, please don't type in all capital letters when you post because it's often taken as a sign of anger or shouting. Next, Wikipedia has lots of types of pages; so, it's not clear what you mean by Wikipedia page. If you mean you want to create a Wikipedia:Article about someone or something, then please take a look at Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not before trying to do so. On the other hand, if you mean you want to create a Wikipedia:User page, then please take a look at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages? before trying to do so. If you still have questions after reading any of those pages, feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask them. You don't need to start a new discussion if you do have more questions, just add them to the bottom of this discussion thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Login error: "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies."

Hello! I have been a registered editor for sometime. Couple days ago I started getting this error when I tried to login on Microsoft Edge. To be clear, I am not blocking cookies, as the error suggests. I searched online and found that people with this issue are usually using some special server and some mediawiki installation; I am doing none of those. I am just a average reader using regular ethernet connection on a regular browser. I am still able to login from Internet Explorer and Google Chrome. Your help is much appreciated! Luminoxius (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a chance it may be a problem with either Edge in general or your Edge browser. If you haven't already tried reinstalling Edge try accessing Wikipedia from Edge's incognito mode (Whatever it's called). There's a chance you just need to clear your cookies as they do occasionally have to be cleared to get a website to work right. (NOTE: I'm not trying to prank you, I'm attempting to help you with your issue) Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Both suggested solutions, incognito and clearing cookies, worked. I can login normally now! --Luminoxius (talk) 18:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I've had to do that once or twice before (not on Wikipedia). A Wild Wolf has appeared! | Gotta catch 'em all! (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Multiple citations

Hi I'm trying to make multiple citations in a single footnote but the template link doesn't exist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Multiref

Is it still possible to multiple citations in a single footnote?

Much thanks Palakasan (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Palakasan, and welcome to the Teahouse. This can be done in the visual editor or in source editing. For source editing, simply contain everything in ref tags, but don't use any ref tags inside those. For the visual editor, simply go to 'Cite', 'Manual', 'Basic form', and create multiple citations in there. It will all come out as a single footnote. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Palakasan: Here's one way to do it:

<ref>Multiple sources: *{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com |title=Title1 |work=Work1}} *{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com |title=Title2 |work=Work2}} *{{cite web |url=https://www.google.com |title=Title3 |work=Work3}} </ref>

...which will look like this:^[1]

References

^
Multiple sources:
- "Title1". Work1.
- "Title2". Work2.
- "Title3". Work3.

Hope this helps - happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you TheTechnician27(Talk page) and GoingBatty (talk), I was able to do it! Palakasan (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

HELP here is an update - after all the work of cleaning up the multiple inline citations it was reverted after a minute. I didn't add any citations that wasn't there 5 edits ago. I may have moved it around. Is there a way my latest edits can be put back and I will just remove the problematic referenced youtube after?

Palakasan (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Palakasan: I presume you're referring to your edits to Bong Coo, which you may have already fixed. GoingBatty (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Hi Yes, among the pages I've edited today this is the most troublesome, I was able to fix it but I got another tag after I combined multiple citations in a single footnote; removed inappropriate link; added inline citation to the word accomplished I still got this -Tags: references removed possible unreferenced addition to BLP

I am being flagged for links that I didn't even add but was just fixing :) Thanks

Palakasan (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Palakasan: Sorry you're having trouble updating this article. I suggest you post on the article talk page, so other editors interested in this topic can provide the appropriate guidance. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

How to add a picture on an existing bibliography

Kairo owethu (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

you just asked this. please be patient. RudolfRed (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If the picture isn't yet at Wikipedia Commons, then see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, and the pages that follow. If it is already there, then jump ahead to Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/3. -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

To complement what Hoary says, Kairo owethu: if the picture is already in Wikimedia Commons, then it is straightforward. If it isn't, then it needs to be uploaded. If it is a picture you took yourself, you can probably do that; if it is not, then it is likely that it cannot be used in Wikipedia. See the links Hoary provided for the details. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Kairo owethu. It's hard to give you a very specific answer without knowing more details, but you can find out some more information in Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Images. Basically what you need to do depends on whether the image you want to add has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If it has, then how it can be used depends upon the type of copyright license it has. So, if you want to use an image of this type, it will be easier for a Teahouse host to help you if you can provide the file name of the image and the name of the Wikipedia page you want to add it to. If, however, the image you want to use doesn't exist (i.e. hasn't yet been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), then things are more complicated and whether it can be uploaded depends upon its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kairo owethu: Pedantic comment - I think you mean biography. A bibliography on Wikipedia would more commonly be called "references", which don't include images. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Timtempleton, possibly more pedantic metacomment: Not necessarily; see for example Category:Bibliographies of people. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hoary: You can teach an old dog new tricks. That's a very specific ask then! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 00:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

April Fool nonsense

It is time we ended this nonsense. It was all very well when wikipedia started, but now wikipedia is serious. No other encyclopedia runs close to the influence wikipedia has. Also, the April Fool Day fun is restricted to a very few countries and many users of wikipedia will have no idea what it is about. --Bduke (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you may wish to suggest this somewhere more appropriate; at a first guess, Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Hoary (talk) 01:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Have done so. Thanks. --Bduke (talk) 02:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this Federal name change enough to change the page name with a redirect from the old/ derogatory geographic name?

What is the effect on Wikipedia when the U. S. Board on Geographic Names changes a derogatory or racist geographic place name? Please, see the “Squaw Tits” talk page. [1] Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Ooligan (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The new name is “Isanaklesh Peaks.” --Ooligan (talk) 04:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You might look at Wikipedia:Requested moves#CM. -- Hoary (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright on images?

I'm working on an article on an extinct roller Ueekenkcoracias, and again, I'm not sure if I can add images or not from www.nlm.nih.gov. If it helps, I'm not in the USA. Thanks in advance! Borophagus talk 08:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

From here? Either way, it's a question that's better asked here at Commons (frequented by more people who are familiar with copyright issues). -- Hoary (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll definitely ask there. Thanks!Borophagus talk 08:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Borophagus. Where you are doesn't really matter in most cases. Anyway, if you scroll down to the very bottom of the website, you'll see a link titled Copyright where you find information on the content hosted on that website. You also find some general information in WP:PD#US government works. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll read up a little (and ask on Commons as well!). Thanks!Borophagus talk 08:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Found a controversial sentence that has no working source

Hi

Im new and recently started to attempt to make contributions and edits.

I visited the page for One Flew Over The Cukoos Nest (novel)

The page contains what I felt was a controversial sentence: "It was Kesey's experience with LSD and other psychedelics that made him sympathetic toward the patients."

When i clicked on the source link for this sentence I found the link didnt work: https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,829087,00.html

So I then attempted to find the article at time.com using a search engine instead. I found a review of the novel, however it did not contain any sentiment or statement that validated the controversial sentence in the wikipedia entry: http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,829087,00.html

I would therefore like to suggest this sentence be deleted from the entry.

Since I am still new and learning the correct procedure, it would be good to know if I would be justified making such an edit and if so how to go about doing so in a manner that ensures the reasons for doing so are clear and fair.

Many thanks VeMangoTree (talk) 08:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

VeMangoTree Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know enough about the subject matter to tell you if such an edit would be valid, but if you feel it would be, you may make the edit and give your reason in either(or both) the edit summary and the article talk page. You may discuss it on the article talk page first if you would like other opinions on the matter first. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, VeMangoTree. I looked up the original URL in the Internet Archive and found it here. It appears to be the same article that you found by searching the Time website. I haven't read the article, but if it doesn't support that sentence, then you would be justified in removing it per WP:VERIFY. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@VeMangoTree: Good catch! It looks like the reference was used appropriately for the two other points where it appears, so I would perhaps replace the cite for the bad sentence with {{citation needed}} (unless you think it's totally out of order, then just remove it). Note that the citation tag for that sentence is the main one out of the three, and the two others simply reference its name, so you'd have to replace one of the other <ref name="Time review" /> snippets with the full one you removed from the unsupported sentence. Also, normally I'd say look through the edit history to find who added it and ask, but it's been there for over 10 years, so chances are slim :-( EditorInTheRye (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I am a newbie here!

Hello, This is Rego Paul. I am a new user here. I have been perusing Wikipedia for years and finally decided to join. I am very much excited and to take part in different topics. Would love to chat with others on here about building an encyclopedia, I am still learning new things. I am now in the IT bachelor's program at Mumbai University. Hope to get to know some of you. Have a wonderful day!! ReGo Paul (talk) 05:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi ReGo Paul, welcome to Wikipedia! I see someone's posted some helpful links and an unhelpful comment on your talk page. So it goes. I hope you have a lot of fun here building the encyclopedia along with all of us. If you have any specific questions as you go, please feel welcome to post them here at the Teahouse. That's exactly what we're here for › Mortee _talk 22:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Mortee I will surely do that.:) --ReGo Paul (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

hello

183.82.103.70 (talk) 10:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Do you have a question? Kleinpecan (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing

Thank you David notMD. Think I asked a wrong question, I meant, for example: There is some confusion in the literature on whether al-Khwārizmī's full name is ابو عبد الله محمد بن موسى الخوارزمي‎ Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī or ابو جعفر محمد بن موسی الخوارزمی‎ Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī. Ibn Khaldun notes in his encyclopedic work: "The first who wrote upon this branch [algebra] was Abu ‘Abdallah al-Khowarizmi, after whom came Abu Kamil Shoja‘ ibn Aslam." (MacGuckin de Slane)[citation needed]. In the introduction to his critical commentary on Robert of Chester's Latin translation of al-Khwārizmī's Algebra, L.C. Karpinski notes that Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad ibn Mūsā refers to the eldest of the Banū Mūsā brothers. Karpinski notes in his review on (Ruska 1917) that in (Ruska 1918): "Ruska here inadvertently speaks of the author as Abū Ga‘far M. b. M., instead of Abū Abdallah M. b. M." Donald Knuth writes it as Abū ’Abd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī and quotes it as meaning "literally, 'Father of Abdullah, Mohammed, son of Moses, native of Khwārizm,'" citing previous work by Heinz Zemanek. [3] And I want to change where its between Bold text with this: Ibn Khaldun notes in his Prolegomena: "The first to write on this discipline [algebra] was Abu 'Abdallah al-Khuwarizmi. After him, there was Abu Kamil Shuja' b. Aslam. People followed in his steps."<refIbn Khaldūn, The Muqaddimah : An introduction to history, Translated from the Arabic by Franz Rosenthal, New York: Princeton (1958), Chapter VI:19</ref> But I can't insert it where it should be and it show my edit at the end. Fari Dark (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Continuing discussion on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Dr. David notMD, under Notes, 1. Where its stated: Ibn Khaldun notes in his encyclopedic work: "The first who wrote upon this branch [algebra] was Abu ‘Abdallah al-Khowarizmi, after whom came Abu Kamil Shoja‘ ibn Aslam." (MacGuckin de Slane)[citation needed]; I meant to remove that sentence and replace it with mine. Fari Dark (talk) 23:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fari Dark, David notMD has written that the discussion continues on your talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dr. David notMD, Thank you for your guidance and support, it is where it should be now. Fari Dark (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

does each award require reference

issue is on G._V._Prakash_Kumar page. does we need reference for each award (nomination or won)? Gi vi an (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gi vi an Per WP:BLP you should have that, yes. Preferably a decent secondary WP:RS, but for the awards that have WP-articles themselves a primary source (the award-org itself) is probably fine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Plaques

Courtesy link: List of blue plaques

Hi, I'm inexperienced at editing and don't want to make anything worse.

On the UK Blue plaques page there's a table. In the table is an entry for Florence Nightingale but the link to the reference 63 is broken and the photo is of a different blue plaque holder, George Herbert Lawrence who is not listed in the table but should be. Florence's plaque has a photo on Derbyshire County Council's Blue plaques page.

If it's not too much trouble, could someone please fix this? I try to edit articles where I see obvious typos or errors, but I struggle to add references (gone horribly wrong twice, sigh) and I am still gathering data for my first article, so this is beyond me at the moment, but would probably take minutes if you were experienced.

TIA, SW Sistahwendle (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Practice creating refs in your Sandbox until good, then transfer to articles. David notMD (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Sistahwendle, thanks for noticing. I fixed the link and removed the pic, I couldn't find the right one at Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal attack!

Hi, could someone provide me with some instructions on how to bring to the attention of the administrators the issue of personal attack by other users on Wikipedia? Specifically, the user Super Dromaeosaurus is accusing me of having issues with Romania. Regards, Legione-Romana (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Hm... Super Ψ Dro 13:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

As a third perspective, I will point out that any one of these edits by itself is vandalism, and the vandalism is all against Romania and Romanians in these diffs. bop34 • talk • contribs 13:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

No, any of those edits are not WP:VANDALISM, though they may be WP:DISRUPTIVE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Today I uploaded a new Wikipedia page, "Job Tyler." I received a message from Modussiccandi citing "Copyright violations." I am unsure of what the violation is, since the text is mine and quotations from other sources are very minor and cited. I later added a photo titled "Tyler Homestead," which is my own personal photo. Please inform me of the violation, if any, and I will make corrections.

  Norman Tyler. (Ntyler1944) Ntyler1944 (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ntyler1944:. I can't see the article in question because it has been deleted by an administrator. However, they have left detailed comments on your Talk Page. I would guess that you have been trying to create an article about a "Job Tyler" that is a relative of yours. Such an article won't be accepted (irrespective of copyright issues) unless you can show they are notable in Wikipedia's rather strict sense. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My Draft

Why was my draft declined - Draft:Space Exploration 64.121.103.144 (talk) 17:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP already has an article on the topic, see Space exploration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding wikiproject tags to Afc submission

User:TheSokks/Sandbox 3 Hello, I tried moving my sandbox User:TheSokks/Sandbox 3 to Draft:Uzor Arukwe but the draft already exists so I decided to submit the sandbox for Afc review but noted that I could not add wikiproject tags as is. Kindly help. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want to replace the draft you've already made with the sandbox, just copy and paste the HTML code of the sandbox to the draft page and publish your changes. That should do the trick. Borophagus talk 08:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The draft was not made by me. Thats why I dont want to replace it. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I hadn't realized that. Not sure what to do then, unfortunately. Sorry!Borophagus talk 08:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Borophagus: in response to 08:28, if anything, he needs to copy the Wiki code (Which is not HTML). Trying to copy the HTML source code over almost never works. For example, the link to my userpage uses this HTML code: <a href="/wiki/User:Victor_Schmidt" title="User:Victor Schmidt">Victor Schmidt</a>. Trying to copy that into an edit window will not work. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:44, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I meant the wikicode smh

Well, thanks for correcting me! Borophagus talk 08:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, TheSokks, and welcome to the Teahouse. It's not obvious what to do in this sort of situation. But my suggestion would be to drop a note to Godstime Elijah (normally on their user talk page, but I've pinged them here, so they will probably join this discussion), suggesting you work together. Since your draft is much better developed, my suggestion would be that they put {{db-author}} on their draft, requesting deletion (other editors have edits that page, but not made substantial contributions); but you can't do that. --ColinFine (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this brilliant suggestion! I guess I'll await Godstime Elijah's response since he's been pinged here. Also just saw that the draft is eligible for deletion by G13 in about 10 days. I can wait till then if there's no response. Thank you once again. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 11:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello TheSokks you can go ahead to replace the article in question Godstime Elijah (talk) 18:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Godstime Elijah. I’d actually need you to put the {db-author} tag on the draft, as suggested above. Thank you. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Move / "Move" option

Ghensley (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ghensley: You didn't ask a question, but I'm going to direct you to Wikipedia:Moving a page. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

1 April

I found that some people were joking on April Fool's Day.I think most people think that CHINA is a PRC, and few people think that CHINA is not a PRC. Adding the category of CHINA to pages related to Taiwan is the same as adding the category of PRC to pages related to Taiwan. It is a very special April Fools' Day joke that @Place Clichy: adds the CHINA category to pages related to Taiwan.But April Fools' Day jokes about such sensitive political issues, it seems too bold.--123.195.96.79 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you'd be better off discussing this on one of the related Wikiprojects, such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Criteria.

When I referred to an article of a scientific peer review journal. It prompt the moderator to accuse that's "the belief" of "your group". What group? What does it make information become Valid? Ephitran (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ephitran: Welcome to the Teahouse. You may have misunderstood the purpose of using ref tags. They are used to provide the reference to information in the body of the article; you appeared to have been creating a wikilink to an article that doesn't exist. You could add the information and provide the reference to the article provided. That said, caution should be exercised if the cited article is a primary source; as a tertiary source, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources.

The user left templated messages on your talk page as they suspected that the article was inserted for promotion. I suggest starting a discussion with them on the articles' talk pages, your own user talk page, or theirs if that is not the case. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment left on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Use of non-free image (correct use of rationale?)

Recently, the image File:MONTERO (Call Me By Your Name) -SATAN'S EXTENDED VERSION-.jpeg was uploaded to Wikipedia and added to the article Montero (Call Me by Your Name) without a non-free use rationale. My question is, can a user beside the uploader add one? Note that I have preemptively done it to avoid deletion without knowing the guidelines surrounding it. If yes, is the usage of Template:non-free use rationale album cover used correctly here? My main concern is the image's status as an alternate cover, and if this is represented with the "Other information" parameter or something else.

Many thanks, Orcaguy (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Orcaguy. Anyone can add a non-free use rationale to a file's page, but adding a non-free use rationale is WP:JUSTONE (actually just one part of one) of the ten non-free content use criteria that need to be satisfied each time a file is used in an article. Just for reference, one album cover is generally deemed sufficient for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but any additional album cover usually have to be the subject of sourced critical commentary somewhere in the article as explained here. So, even though you added a non-free use rationale for this file, someone might disagree and decide to challenge the validity of the rationale. Don't just assume that providing a non-free use rationale automatically makes the file's non-free use policy compliant because alternative versions of album covers are sometimes tricky to sort out and ones which are simply added to show the cover art have ended up being deleted in some cases. So, you should try and find sourced critical commentary related to the cover art of the extended version (not just about the extended version, but about its cover) if possible and add that to the article to better establish the non-free use of the file. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

What do I do if someone is wrongfully threatening me with a sanction in Wikipedia over some harmless edits?

Epictrex (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Epictrex: Adding material to an article without providing citations to reliable sources is not harmless. I suggest you try out the WP:TUTORIAL and learning game at WP:ADVENTURE to learn more about how Wikipedia works. Also, if someone removes one of your edits, do not redo it without discussing it on the article's talk page. Otherwise you may be in an edit war which is not allowed. RudolfRed (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing and making changes

If I see two pieces of contradicting information, can I just change the incorrect piece of information without citing? TyphoonIvy (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You have been reverted three times at Hurricane Eta by three different editors. Is that what you are asking about, or a different article? Vague questions can only get vague answers. David notMD (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say my edits are not harmless?

Previous discussion : #What do I do if someone is wrongfully threatening me with a sanction in Wikipedia over some harmless edits?

Epictrex (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(refers to Teahouse exchange earlier today) You have been inserting disputed content - without supporting references - into multiple articles. That fits the definition of harmful. Hence the reply above and the warning on your Talk page. Wikipedia's guideline is BRD: be Bold, but if Reverted, take it to a Discussion on the talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The danger of making lists of Jews...

Hello all. Can someone explain to me how a nomination for deletion of a list of Jewish people (many of which are alive therefore breaking the rules for BLPs) can be up for debate? I've nominated for deletion List of Jewish chess players (a second nomination after many years) because it violates WP:OCEGRS which states "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career. For instance, in sports, a Roman Catholic athlete is not treated differently from a Lutheran or Methodist" and you'll see that this guideline uses Jewish Mathematicians as an example of how it's not OK to categorize people this way.

Further, WP:EXEMPT1E states "These principles apply equally to lists".

The issue with any list like this is that it has the potential to be dangerous for those included in it who are living. I don't see why it can continue to exist because a few people say it should. Wikipedia guidelines seem to state very clearly that a list like this should not exist.

This is the first time I've nominated anything other than my own sandboxes for deletion so perhaps I didn't state my reasons for nomination strongly enough? Thanks in advance for any guidance or help on this. Sukey (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

How? Because the question "Should WP describe X as Jewish" is a difficult one for the WP-community, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive306 for one example. Another: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive316#Coffee_removing_Categories_and_Lists_Inappropriately. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

- The guidelines I linked to are clearly against lists of people of a given religion or ethnicity. I read the page you recommended and found the statement by Mr. Kosner to be applicable here. I understand that people want to debate this but they should debate the guidelines themselves rather than the pages that violate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukey (talk • contribs)

@Sukey: It is not WP:EXEMPT1E which says "These principles apply equally to lists", it is WP:BLPCAT, and it doesn't refer to WP:OCEGRS or any other mention of ethnicity. It talks about "religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation". Jews are both considered an ethnic and religious group, and can have lists for ethnic groups. I don't think "Jew" or "chess player" suggests a poor reputation. If the listed people publicly identify as Jews then any added danger by being on a Wikipedia list is minimal, and they probably don't mind. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

- @PrimeHunter WP:EXEMPT1E absolutely does address this. "Special care must be taken when adding living persons to lists based on religion or on sexual orientation." The concern in this case isn't suggesting 'poor reputation'. Where I live there are thousands of anti-Semitic incidents every year and having registries of Jewish persons makes targeting hatred and violence easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukey (talk • contribs)

Your first post claimed or strongly implied that WP:EXEMPT1E applies to ethnicity. It does not. I view lists of Jews with non-religious professions as lists of ethnicity. Jews also publish lists of notable Jews, e.g. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jews-in-america (I assume the authors are mostly Jews). I think your idea that the identity of notable Jews should be hidden is uncommon, also among Jews. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

- Your first point is well taken. Regarding the second, I would never suggest anyone should hide their identity, and I'm not advocating for having one's Jewish identity removed from their individual bio page, but when everyone is presented in list form it's a bit worrisome. I do see your point re: the JVL however! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukey (talk • contribs) 00:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input. I've withdrawn this nomination. Sukey (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bunker Guru Dr. Vis

Is this notable? Garnet73 (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Garnet73: Welcome to the Teahouse. Do you have any reliable sources that establish the subject's notability? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The box at the right hand side of articles

Hi, when you view a wikipedia article, there is always a box at the right hand side. For example, on the page for a person, on the right hand side there is an image of them, their birth date, death date, and lots of information about them. When creating an article, how do you add one of these boxes? Thanks. Samtla (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Read this Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes He iro 06:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Just to note, there isn't always an infobox and many articles (particularly shorter ones) don't need one. --Paul ❬talk❭ 07:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

User Page Pics and Templates?

Hey all. I'd like to start building out my User page a little so other Wikipedians can get to know me. But, I don't want to use any images that I don't own or didn't create. What images am I allowed to use? Only images from Wikipedia Commons? Also, is there a list of templates anywhere that are specifically for developing User Pages only? Thanks for the help. Megtetg34 (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Megtetg34. The easiest images to use are those hosted on Wikimedia Commons, but you should do your own due diligence to verify that a given image is used properly. You could go to antique book sales stores or websites, buy an illustrated book published before 1926 which is now copyright free, and scan and upload those images. You can find images created by employees of the U.S. government which are public domain by law, and upload those. Or, you can take photos yourself of things like birds, mountains, lakes, butterflies, flowers, historic sites, famous people appearing in public, and the like. You can upload that type of photo to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. Random photos found on the internet are very rarely acceptable, and it is your obligation to prove that any image you propose to use is acceptable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! I did just read an article that said you can't post/use images you don't own, but your suggestions on where I might get my own files are helpful. What about user page templates? Are there limits on those? As in userboxes, etc. Like, where I'm from and so forth, languages I speak, etc.

Megtetg34, you can use any image that you took and have freely licensed, or that has been freely licenced by others, or are in the public domain. You can post any userbox that is informative and collaborative. You cannot post userboxes that are hateful, disruptive or make personal attacks on other people, and you cannot use images for disruptive purposes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Cullen³²⁸! Thanks again! Megtetg34 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User pages and for a deep dive Wikipedia:User page design center. David notMD (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this file good for Wikipedia?

Is this file good for Wikipedia? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:KTFV-CD_logo.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItsJustdancefan (talk • contribs) 2021-04-03T03:04:20 (UTC)

Hello, ItsJustdancefan, and welcome to the Teahouse. Any file in Commons may be used in Wikipedia. Whether a particular image is appropriate for a particular article is always a matter of editorial judgment, and sometimes there can be disagreement; but I don't think anybody would oppose adding a logo to an article about the logo's owner. --ColinFine (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

How do I change redirects into articles? Currently, "Kooki Kingdom" redirects to a page called "Kooki." The Kooki page, base on the infobox and everything, seems to be talking about the Ugandan Chiefdom of the same name. You see my problem is that I want to create a page about the pre-colonial kingdom known as the Kooki Kingdom and not the Ugandan Chiefdom, but there is a redirect in the way. Wowzers122 (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

On the redirect's target, click the link in "(Redirected from Kooki Kingdom)" below the title, and then edit it. Kleinpecan (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wowzers122. If you are confident that you can create an article good enough for mainspace immediately, then do what Kleinpecan suggests. In any other case, I advise you to use the articles for creation process and create a draft; when a reviewer accepts your draft they will sort out the rediraction. --ColinFine (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

What if main reference is not available online but is a bio at the back of the author's book?

Hello my submission for Malaysian politician and academic Syed Husin Ali - who served 6 years in the Senate, 6 years as a political prisoner, ran for parliament three times and has published around 20 books - was rejected due to a lack of citing sources.

I listed three sources - from Malaysia's most read news websites, but the most complete source was the bio at the back of one of his books, which I cannot find online. How do I go about this submission? Malaysian leftist (talk) 07:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Malaysian leftist, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources absolutely do not have to be online: they just need to have been reliably published. For a book source, the important parts of the citation are the title, author, publisher, date, page number; a URL is a convenience for the reader, not an integral part of the citation. Note that material in one of his books may well be reliably published, but is not independent, and so can be used only in the limited ways allowd for primary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the explanation Colin Fine. I will amend my entry accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malaysian leftist (talk • contribs) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Title-case redirect: R from other capitalisation or R from miscapitalisation?

Should I tag a title-case redirect with {{R from other capitalisation}} or {{R from miscapitalisation}}? Kleinpecan (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The Template pages that you reach when clicking onto the two cases give advice, Kleinpecan. To give more specific advice where you may be having doubts, we would need to know your precise example. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that you meant the redirect at "Private Wealth Management". I'd say that this was not a miscapitalisation but an example where Wikipedia's convention for article titles (upper case first word only, usually) conflicts with the PWM that people might look for. So I'd use the {{R from other capitalisation}} template. To complicate things slightly, the disambiguation page at PWM points out that there is also a Professional Wealth Management magazine. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia article on the top 40 country music songs of 2021

Is there a Wikipedia article on the top 40 country music songs of 2021 71.241.216.37 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

According to whom? I don't think so, there's articles like 2021 in country music and American Country Countdown Awards. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Article assessments

Why do some articles classify articles differently? For example:The article on Donald Trump is classified as a C class article in the Vital Articles section, but the Wikipedia editorial team and many others say it is B Class. Why is that? Blue Jay (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi The great Jay. I guess it is for the same reason that some people might class the subject of the article as "B" while others would say "C". It can often be a matter of opinion, although the criteria are laid out at WP:ASSESS. Only GA and above go through a formal assessment process. For lesser grades, anyone can apply any rating (subject to the usual WP:BRD policy) and many articles have never caught up with recent improvements, given that they should not be assessed by those people who have made substantial contributions to them. Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this notable enough?

There's something going on at the pages Dante (name), Jerry (given name), and Hyperion. People keep adding examples from Hypixel, and other people keep removing them, and I think we should reach consensus on this. Do they belong on those pages? Please answer soon, I'm getting pretty mad with this. RteeeeKed (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi RteeeeKed. These edits are, in my view, attempts by you to add indiscriminate, non-notable, connective trivia to articles in which they do not belong, and to boot, is content that is entirely unsourced. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Fuhghettaboutit, there are no sources on any of the pages I mentioned at all, and Hypixel has seen 10 million players. I doubt any of that applies. RteeeeKed (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My take on this, RteeeeKed, is that entries on such pages are "sourced" by the articles on Wikipedia to which they link. In other words, for some new entry to merit retention on these lists they have to be associated with a notable topic, preferably an article directly about them. The reason I couldn't be on List of people with given name Michael is that there is no WP article on me as I'm not WP:notable enough. If I were ever to be notable and have an article about me included, then I'd expect to be on the list. How many players there are on Hypixel is irrelevant: the only question should be whether each named individual is independently notable, as notability is not inherited (see also other guidelines at WP:GNG). Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Inserting images and changing font colors

Uhh how do you insert images and change font colors because I think I know how to thoughts?-Felix Felixstar1965 (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Felixstar1965, welcome to the Teahouse. ... is obsolete. See Wikipedia:HTML 5#font and Help:Using colours. See Help:Pictures. It can be complicated because we respect copyright. If you have problems then please say which image you want to insert in which article. Link the image, or say how you got it if it's offline. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Should we be concerned that today, April 3, is the final countdown, 4.3.21 ^[sarcasm]

117.196.187.92 (talk) 09:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Only in the USA. PrincessPersnickety (talk) 09:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe: here in the UK only a few have survived March 4.^{[citation needed]} Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't worry, Wikipedia already survived 07:06:05 (UTC). We should be OK for another century. Who needs 68 million Brits? PrimeHunter (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this edit a neutral point of view?

I had my exit reverted here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1015771642&markasread=215008440&markasreadwiki=enwiki&diffmode=source And I think the reverted language is not neutral and unbiased like an encyclopedia should be. I don't want to get into an edit war - what should I do here?

Also, sorry if formatting or something is off. Not very good at this stuff. Esb5415 (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Esb5415: welcome to the Teahouse. I can't see anything in the text you removed that's not neutrally written, and I have looked at the sources to see that they support the text. However, this is not a topic I know anything about so my opinion isn't worth that much! What you should do is take the question to the article talk page and explain there why you do not think the writing is neutral. The article talk page is almost always the best place to start when your edits are reverted – as you say, edit warring is not a good idea. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 14:12, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Or, ask the editor (on that person's Talk page) why the disagreement. David notMD (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

template for Bible verse

I have been using [[s:Bible (King James)/Psalms#Psalm 23|Psalms:23]], but I want a template that will actually show the verse under discussion. I have looked everywhere and can't find one that makes the verse readable - is there one? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Would using a {{quote}} template or blockquoting right after the link suit your needs? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I want a non-King James reference too.

Tenryuu 🐲 And write out the verse myself - or what did you have in mind? Is that allowed?!? I found some templates but they had the term "bull" in them and I don't know what that is - they were about references that use an off wiki site.

Tenryuu 🐲 Could the many brilliant techno-geeks we have here invent one? Where can I ask that question?

A template that would automatically display an English translation of a Bible verse raises the issue of which translation? Bible translations into English describes some of the issues, and the most widely read translation, the King James Version uses archaic language and has some inaccuracies. The New Revised Standard Version is widely used by mainstream bible scholars but is not accepted by conservative Christian denominations. Jewish editors would be unhappy with either. How would these issues be resolved? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally I think Bible-verses are a little like WP:ENGVAR/WP:CITEVAR, as in up to creator, use what's in the article already, don't change unless there's good reason. Plus, like the other VAR:s, one may encounter editors with strong opinions on what is "right". I tend to use [8] outside Christian stuff, someone recommended it at some point, but since we insert these verses for our readers, in general a more modern translation is reasonable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ All the WP Bible templates require the designation of a version but don't specify any particular one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång is correct: choice is left to the editor. Bible verses are included largely for readers who are otherwise unfamiliar with the Bible, so they can see for themselves what is being paraphrased and claimed in the article. It's an exemplar of what is otherwise claimed in a secondary source. "The historian Peter Brown writes that Tertullian argued Paul said thus and so in Romans 12:1 (Bible template of Roman 12:1 placed here) which led to civil unrest." Romans 12:1 needs to show up so people can see what is being discussed. Surely someone knows some way to reference a Bible verse with a template that makes it visible. Do we not have that on WP after all this time? I think those who reference the Koran do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, when I search for Bible templates, I find Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Templates which have nothing to do with rendering individual Bible verses. Can you please provide wikilinks to the documentation for the Bible and Koran templates that you are discussing? Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Cullen³²⁸ I am confused. Are you asking me to provide a wikilink to what I don't know how to find and am asking you if you can? I don't have a wikilink. If I did I wouldn't be here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion of how to reference Bible verses here: Wikipedia:Citing sources/Bible but it doesn't do us much good in answering my question. This is very frustrating. I can't believe I'm the only person to ever ask this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Jenhawk, can you link to an article that "does" Quran-verses like you want? I don't remember seeing that. If I understand you correctly, you want something like a preview card but for a bit of scripture. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Sure, there's one kind here: [9] 4th paragraph down is a reference 15:9 that links to the Quran on WP. But what I am looking for is more like the preview function you have here - I think. :-) If we don't have that ability already, surely someone at tech could magic it up, right? Who and where should I make this request if this in fact does not yet exist? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Seems like a decent off-WP Quran, I don't know anything about those en-translations. WP:TECHPUMP may be the place to start. Of course, you could just put text between reftags.^[1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

References

^ Text between reftags

Gråbergs Gråa Sång Put text between ref tags?!? I can do that? Holy Toledo Batman! I will try that! You are always helpful. Thank you! (If it doesn't work I will come back and haunt you... :-)) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

How to deal with this? (incivility)

Good day.

I've been editing a draft for an upcoming TV series for the last two days. Meanwhile, a user has reverted my edits saying that the lead must be kept short. However, I only did the edits according to the WP:MOSTV where a short summary of the plot is included in the lead. Also, isn't it that the lead must summarize the entire article?

Here is the entire draft talk: Draft talk:Niña Niño. He even replied, "Sige, pre. Sabi mo, eh." twice which means "Okay. If you said so." which I find a bit rude. Also, revision number 1015779662 of Draft:Niña Niño includes an edit summary which is obviously made in bad faith to mock only.

Any advice on what should be done? HiwilmsTalk 15:11, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment left on Talk page of draft. Hoping that the disagreements can be attributed to not enough to do on a Saturday, and that the draft can be as you wish it - as the creator - until a reviewer weighs in. David notMD (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: Thanks for weighing in the talk page. Does WP:MOSTV not count as a guideline despite being explicitly stated in the page? Also, the edit summary in the draft itself which says "Fix listing style due to whininess in the talk page" seems inappropriate. Any thoughts? HiwilmsTalk 15:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Mea culpa on glossing over the fact that MOSTV is in fact a guide. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks a lot and stay safe! HiwilmsTalk 19:27, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Good edits

how do you make good edits john smith Epicperson938203 (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Epicperson938203: Welcome to the Teahouse! On your talk page, there is a large template with dozens of links to helpful material. Check out two on the top left: Wikipedia tutorial and How to: edit a page. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Same name mixup

My friend is on a new show that is premiering soon. The show has its own Wikipedia page and my friend is listed as cast but when you click on her name it takes you to another persons Wikipedia page who shares the same name and is a political figure, not an actor. How can i fix this or do I need to create a Wikipedia page for my friend? Oxford Smith (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Oxford Smith: Welcome to the Teahouse! It's good that you removed the incorrect link from Chad (TV series). Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not create a page for your friend, Alexa Loo. When she meets the criteria at WP:NACTOR, someone else will do it. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Songs (with pages) on Albums (with pages)

Hello, thanks for the invite! I'm considering expanding an album page Low (David Bowie album) to include details about the music. But some of the songs also have their own pages eg Art Decade - which have little information. I've no wish to attempt merging so I'm wonder where to put the information, my feeling is to keep it to the album page because it is a better page. A secondary question is how I can use musical notation - are the fonts here or do we import files? Thanks. (slip of keyboard follows...)

Thelisteninghand (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thelisteninghand: Welcome to the Teahouse! You can be bold and post the information wherever you think is best, or give a detailed proposal on the article/song talk page. In either case, be sure you provide reliable sources. The <score>...</score> tags are supposed to be used for musical notation, but they're not currently working - see Help:Score. GoingBatty (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty Thanks. That's a hell of a shame about the MIDI player -I just looked at the conversation. I think it's still not fixed. And yes, I am looking to verify anything I type - even though I think saying 'this note is A' is the same as saying Paris is the capital of France. But my own reading of a piece, - giving a four bar example for instance - needs verifying as far as I can see. Thelisteninghand (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing a source if it is not publically accessible

So I can't find an answer to this on WP:CS. In Iceland there is this database called Íslendigabók in which every (or most, I don't really know) Icelandic citizen is registered. Among other things, it lists every registered person's birth date, so I would like to use it as a source for two individuals' birth dates on a page (because the current estimated ages are based on an interview, in which one of the two actually lied about his age). However only people registered in Íslendigabók have access to it, which excludes me. But I know an Icelander whom I've asked and I trust her to have actually looked this up in the database directly. So can I use this as a source and if so, how would I denote this?

Thank you in advance for any answer! Sparkle666 (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sparkle666: Welcome to the Teahouse! You could use {{cite web}} with |url-access=registration. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sparkle666: If they are living then Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources does not allow use of such a source. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Sparkle666. You can find out some general information about this a WP:SAYWHERE and WP:PUBLISH, but as PrimeHunter points out above, WP:PRIMARY sources in general are quite tricky to use, particularly when the are used with respect to content about living persons per WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

GoingBatty, PrimeHunter and Marchjuly Thank you all! I decided to simply delete the age estimates and to add a note on the talk page.

Are editor-oriented Wikipedia pages headache inducing to editors as well?

Normally I like to browse Wikipedia, but every time I start clicking links on talk pages it'll quickly spiral into textual-overload mashed potatoes. I'm curious as to how people who frequently participate in these editor-oriented pages view them; my assumption is that accessibility isn't as much of a priority, but nothing gets me more sick of reading Wikipedia then a journey down editor lane. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Howdy, Pernicious.Editor. You're not the only one who feels this way, though a lot of editors (myself included) shift more toward meta discussions over time as they edit more. See: exopedianism, mesopedianism, and metapedianism. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

why my artical got decelined

why my artical got decelined although the grammer of the artical was correct also the way the artical was written was also correct but it was cancelled by david because he said the artical didnt had a good topic although the Topic was on SAFT MUN which is a debate society and i wrote each and every thing about it and in detail and also proof of the writeen work Hamix YT (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hamix YT Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your article was rejected because what I assume to be your debate society has not received significant coverage in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to write about it, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. You offer no independent sources at all, such as news stories that discuss your society in depth. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something, like social media is. Please read Your First Article for more information. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article is one of the hardest tasks to do here, and it takes much time, practice, and experience to be successful. 331dot (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Help

Hi, currently I'm completely down! Have a look at this, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man, I'm accused for Sockpuppet. But which is completely wrong. I don't have any connection with the sock user:Phoenix Man. I started this account as "Sharath Aekansh" and later renamed as"Sharath Abhivadyah". Which is a Sanskrit word and also one of the name of lord Shiva. Here a person named Abhivadhyah is blocked as a sockpuppet of that above mentioned phoenix man.

Some people confirmed that I'm also a sockpuppet of phoenix man. The reasons they mentioned are:

they're also using an identical signature to Vidhweshwar.

I've just copied the signature syntax from someone here and edited. I've seen so many same model signatures here in Wikipedia.

I have a question about new User:Sharath Abhivadyah - their first edit after creating their Talk and User pages and changing their username was !voting in the Prashanth Nair AfD [10], which I tagged as having made few or no other edits outside of the topic [11]. The similar username to other socks, e.g. 1, 2, participation in an AfD where a sock had previously participated, and what seems like a more than basic understanding of Wikipedia (e.g. changing their username [12], participating in AfD) may be relevant in terms of the SPI discussions that have happened. After I tagged their !vote in the AfD discussion as having made few or no other edits outside of the topic, one of their next edits included a !vote in an AfD for a school in India, [13], which may also be relevant. I realize that this could all be a series of coincidences, but I figured I would mention this due to the history of these investigations.

I don't know what to do. Please help me . _signed,Sharath Abhivadyah ^{Talk Page} 02:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You're able to respond at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Phoenix man, and indeed I see that you have already done so. This isn't a Teahouse matter. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Publishing a Submitted Draft

If i find an Article that has been submitted and i am well knowledgeable about the topic, a i allowed to make edits or if non required is it okay for me to move it in the main Space? Ibitukirire (talk) 13:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Ibitukirire. There are, understandably, fairly strict rules for becoming a general reviewer of submitted articles. They are described at WP:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. Many of us (myself included) have been around for years without taking that on. On the other hand, any editor can make constructive edits to articles that are pending review, or comment on the draft's Talk Page about the content, just as with articles already in Main Space. You can place your own drafts straight on to Main Space but beware that if you do so the New Pages patrol folk are likely to treat it more harshly than an article that has gone through the WP:AfC process, so I don't recommend that until you are very experienced here. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Alright, Thank you. Ibitukirire (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Approving New Page - Please advise if additional information is required

Recently submitted the following page, and included several reputable citations, including CNN.

Please advise if additional information may be required.

Thanks, Ken

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kv2000/Katie_Hunt_Wallpaper Kv2000 (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Ken, and welcome to Wikipedia. Currently the article lacks reliable sources that talk about the subject in depth. In order to show the subjects notability you have to add more reliable independent sources that would offer significant coverage - not just a mention. Another thing that requires your attention is style and language - as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's important to keep it neutral and avoid any type of advertisement. Please take a look at these policies: WP:IRS - about the sources, WP:SIGCOV - about the coverage, WP:NPOV - about the style. Please also note that if you are related to the subject it's highly recommended to avoid writing about them. Best, Less Unless (talk) 13:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I have made the amendments recommended. Thanks, Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kv2000 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a comment, Kv2000. The CNN source would be the strongest of the few in your draft, as it is reliable. However, it does not provide significant coverage of Hunt, just a mention in the context of an article about wallpaper. You need several sources about the person herself from which to build a proper biography worthy of an article (the criteria described as notablility, which most people and very many new drafts don't meet). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Move over redir (I think?)

A new article on a band has been created at The 400 unit. I wanted to move it to the correct capitalisation at The 400 Unit, but there exists a redir from that name to the article on the front man Jason Isbell, and the redir page has a fair bit of history. Any advice? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging the new article's creator @TheMoodyTracey: for possible comments. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the "The" necessary? I think it is not. So, simplest maybe to move it to 400 Unit and redirect both titles there. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Ping DoubleGrazing. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not myself familiar with this act, but judging by the article on Isbell, the 'The' does seem to be part of the name. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:THE. You could list it at WP:RM/TR. If the significant history at the target precludes moving the new article over it, I am sure the experienced page movers that patrol there will say so. Or you could just propose a move (WP:RM#CM) and move on. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Talk page - article "White Lady"

Article White Lady: - I am sorry for asking that, but in the article named above authors are asked, to improve the article and to source badly sourced paragraphs. Unfortunately I experienced, that parts of the texts inserted by myself had been deleted although they were very well sourced and I made the effort, not only to do secondary cites by copy and paste, but even reading the original sources and finding new and actual sources. Additionally I found paragraphs - by my opinion not the best english and only a few or no cites - and those parts of the article seem to exist for a long time. This seems to be very contradictive and explanations could be useful. My questions resulting from those experiences are, if this article is intended to be deleted completely, - are there certain authors to claim a function as the only guardians of this article (and others are not wanted or needed), - do the english Wikipedians prefer simple collections of sources without any text? In the hope to get answers to my questions I looked back in the talk page, but I found the interesting hint as below:

"The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion."

What for do unexperienced or new authors need a closed talk box, when they have questions or would like to check up, what kind of change is helpful? Making suggestions in the talk-page and getting advices could probably be very pleasant. But I am really helpless, how to deal with such an interdict as quoted above.

Concerning the contents I think folkloristic mythology is a part of the mankind's knowledge and it should be, written about that - not in a manner, that readers get the impression, the authors could probably believe in ghosts -, but for my own I made the experience, that dealing with ghost stories an folkloristic superstition reveals interesting historical facts. I agree with wikipedia, that a wiki is not to find new theories or do any research on that topics, texts have to be neutral, but I think it should be allowed, to report things as they are fixed in the cited literature.

I also mention my comments in the talk box of my account, and please be not injured because of my very direct language - I do not intend to be impolite, but I have written this very quickly, but maybe this may help you answer my questions.

I think I will wait for your answers or discussion, before I start adding further informations in this text. Bockpeterteuto (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bockpeterteuto, the message "The discussion above is closed" refers to the discussion about whether to move "White Lady (ghost)" to "White Lady". You are welcome to discuss the changes you made, by starting a new section on the talk page. Map room (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) Bockpeterteuto, partial answer. All WP-articles are work in progress. A lot of stuff on WP is imperfect, since we have thousands of active editors for our millions of articles. People work on what they think they should.

"are there certain authors to claim a function as the only guardians of this article" - See WP:OWN.

"The discussion above is closed" That refers to the specific diskussion about the article's name, you are encouraged to start other discussions as necessary (and revisit the naming question if you think that's worth doing, in a new thread). You edited the article, then LuckyLouie edited it after you, partly reverting you. That's how WP works, sometimes. If you disgree with some of what they did, per WP:BRD you can go to the talkpage and start a discussion about it, or, you can just edit again and see what happens. See WP:EDITWAR though. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Bockpeterteuto, welcome to the Teahouse. Nobody "owns" an article or has special rights over it. We do not prefer simple collections of sources without any text, but editors often disagree about what to include. You can start a new section on the "New section" tab, or post to old unclosed sections by clicking the "edit" link at the heading. Please be more specific. Click the "View history" tab and then the "prev" links to see who removed something and whether they gave a reason. You can link to the edit when you post about it. You can contact the editor with {{Reply to|username}} in a signed post, or by posting to their user talk page. See more at Help:Talk pages. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Bockpeterteuto, the White lady article happens to be on my watchlist. Your additions appeared well sourced but your English grammar was poor and incomprehensible in parts, and often going into great detail about people and things not directly related to the topic (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING). I only cut a small portion of it. The rest I edited for grammar and tone. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

===>>>helpful criticism always welcome, furthermore see below! By my opinion this was a problem of different points of view, how to create a text, and simply a matter of personal taste. I stop editing this article until I am signalized to go on. Do you allow me to discuss problems on our user talk pages in order to find a consensus? Yrs. sincerely and thank you very much in advance Bockpeterteuto (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course, if you, Bockpetereuto, have simple collections of sources that may be useful for citations, you can mention them on the article's talk page to see if they're eligible to be added. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Map room, Gråbergs Gråa Sång,PrimeHunter and User:Tenryuu, thank you very much for your really kind and helpful advice and the links to instructions for users. I have read them very properly and after reading them I have read the corrections made by the mentioned editor even more careful and properly. This only strenghtened my doubts concerning the revisor and his motives - and I by myself cannot get rid of the concern that this matter could become conflict-prone (that I urgently would like to avoid). I still disagree even more with those changes after all this re-reading, but I am not going to start an editwar, because I think this theme isn't worth it and editing for Wikipedia is a hobby for me and should be delightful for me. There are several factors, that made suppose, there possibly could arise the supposition of a claim for ownership: first of all please read the comment above, the second: the user talk page of the mentioned editor seems to be not very inviting to leave anything there, third the way how the reversions were made: by my impression always the central aspect and the main statement had been deleted. And last but not least I do not claim to be a native speaker of the english language (maybe my english is slightly old-fashioned) and I am very thankful to anyone who helps me to improve my language, but I think that criticism may be probably not totally wrong, but this I think some kind of criticism belongs to done into my personal talk box. Any editor is invited to correct mistakes in grammar, if they should happen to me, and explain it to me. I also try not to use slang or common speech. But all those collected aspects make this matter taste a little bit strange to me. I apologize for asking you, to read the corrections, that have been made, and then discuss them with me. I may conclude, that I feel to be a guest in the english Wikipedia and for myself do not want to to get suspicious to claim any ownership, so I do not want to provoke any conflict and I will not change anything in the reverts, that had been done, but this is tolerance and no agreement. It is clear to me, that articles are edited and usually I do not mind and often I thank for it, but the way it is done sometimes could also be interpreted as a message. Sorry for causing troubles and thank you very much for all - also in advance for your kind attention and help, Yrs. sincerely Bockpeterteuto (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

finding disambiguation pages

Hi i have a question, please help me...how i find disambiguation pages in any wikipedia page? Almgerdeu (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

If you mean links to disambiguation pages, you can go to your preferences → Gadgets and turn on "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Or did you mean something else? Kleinpecan (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

thanksssssssss very very very muccccch Kleinpecan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almgerdeu (talk • contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2021(UTC)

How can I start an FA review?

I have noticed that the article of Uncle Tom's Cabin has a section in its talk page that explains all the issues it currently has, which according to Retired Duke, needs a lot of significant work to bring it up to the current FA status. So how can I make an FAR and notify people about it? Blue Jay (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Blue Jay. You can find some general information on this at WP:FA? and WP:FAC. Good luck. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Jay Also see Wikipedia:Featured article review. Uncle Tom's Cabin became a FA in 2007, and as you mentioned, a comment on the Talk page suggested it be reevaluated. David notMD (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Template(s) for disambiguating punctuation series?

I'm pretty sure I remember seeing templates for cleanly displaying punctuation sequences that wikicode would misinterpret. For example, a published review discussing several works might have a separate section for each work. Suppose that in the third paragraph of a section the reviewer has written

The book treats the controversy impartially, detailing both sides' claims in appropriate detail and with a neutral authorial voice.

And suppose I'm quoting just that paragraph. I want to name the book that the reviewer is talking about, but its title appears only in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the section. The book has an article here on WP, so I want that sentence in the quote to look something like

The book [The Wives of Mr. Jones] treats the controversy...

with the title and brackets to show that it's not part of the quotation but a comment on it, and linked to the WP article about that book. Normally I'd just double-bracket the title, but the resulting triple brackets in wikicode

''[[[The Wives of Mr. Jones]]]''

would probably get mangled in the display. What are the templates to prevent this?

(I've just realized that readers might well interpret the italics as standard format for book titles. I've already spent way too long composing this question, so please assume that it's not about a book or anything else that in itself requires italics.) Thnidu (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Thnidu. You can use {{Bracket}} PrimeHunter (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Or {{'}}. Or, I suppose, <nowiki>. DS (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Directory of Sudanese scientist in the world

I'm looking for volunteers to help me in Wikipedia new project entitled "Directory of Sudanese scientist in the world" Abdulla (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse Abdulla2021. There is already an article called List of Sudanese scientists which you could add to if any are missing. Note that as with all such list articles the only people who should be included are those for whom a Wikipedia article already exists (that is, showing that they are in the Wikipedia sense, notable). Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Abdujlla2021. Please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --ColinFine (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abdujlla2021: We already have List of Sudanese scientists, which will suit you better. Such 'List' articles should only contain links to people for whom we already have a biography about them here. You could start a new article about them, providing you can find independent sources which refer to them. See WP:NPROF or WP:NBIO for our notability criteria. Then you could at them to that List. Hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Rebellion Research

Would it be possible for some experienced editors to review Rebellion Research the entire article appears to be PR + promoting the CEO. Regards Devoke water 17:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Devokewater. In the article's current state, after your edits, I think the article is just fine. I agree that the section 'Alexander Fleiss, CEO' (added by two IPs coincidentally located in NYC) was wild, unabashed WP:PROMO and should've been completely removed, and I think your edit has successfully solved every single issue tag on that article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks TheTechnician27 (Talk page) I was a bit concerned that my edits were over the top. --Devoke water 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's always good to get a second opinion when removing 3/5 of an article's prose. If anything, though, that section massively detracted from and essentially tried to cannibalize the original article and was wildly unbalanced, and I would bet money on it that the IP edits were from Fleiss himself or from someone affiliated with him. It's a good thing a vigilant editor like yourself found it so soon (it's been less than a year, which in Wikipedia time ain't half bad). While I can't go back in time and read Alexander Fleiss, my guess is it was more of the same. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, you can – there is a copy of the article in the Internet Archive. Kleinpecan (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Živko Lukić

Sorry about my historical knowledge, but what would Belgrade, the birthplace of Živko Lukić, be classified as in the infobox of the article? I just put Belgrade, Yugoslavia, but since he was born in July 1944 (World War II), I don't know what the correct things are to be put. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Paul Vaurie (talk) just checked the infobox, it looks fine to me. --Devoke water 18:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Can Smithsonian Open Access images be used in articles?

Hello - Can Smithsonian Open Access images be used in Wikipedia articles? https://www.si.edu/openaccess Should the image be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons first? With link back to the Smithsonian site? Thank you for your help! Nicolet1327 (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Nicolet1327. That website states "We have released these images and data into the public domain as Creative Commons Zero (CC0), meaning you can use, transform, and share our open access assets without asking permission from the Smithsonian." Therefore, those images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and used for any purpose. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

musicians info box

Hi there I'm trying to add a non-classical musicians info box to the draft page below. Any advice or pointers about how to do this would be very much appreciated.

Many thanks! Lndnfr----

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Janine_Rainforth Lndnfr (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lndnfr: Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you use {{Infobox musical artist}} instead of {{Infobox artist}}, and then populate the appropriate value to the right of each equals sign. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello GoingBatty

Thank you for your reply - I'm not sure how to do this ...! but will try to look into how to do it ..! ----

@Lndnfr: I edited the draft and you should be able to add the values to the infobox now and see them populate. Norsser

Is it possible to have text and userboxes run parallel to each other?

Hi, at my userpage, I'm trying to have a short snippet of text on the left and some of my userboxes on the right. However, it seems like each occupies its own line to the left/right. Is it possible to have them directly next to eachother? Thank you. DrawWikiped^(talk) 18:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrawWikiped: Welcome to the Teahouse! Yes, it is possible - see my user page as an example, where I use {{Userboxtop}} and {{Userboxbottom}} to keep the userboxes on the right. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Hi, sorry, maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I added both of those tags to my userbox list and I still don't get the parallel effect I'm looking for. DrawWikiped^(talk) 20:23, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrawWikiped: You asked if it's possible to have text and userboxes run parallel. It seems that the text "I'm semi-new..." is parallel to the first userbox. Could you please provide more details on exactly what you want? GoingBatty (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking personal deleted edits

Hi there, is it possible to check the content/edit summary of edits you made which were deleted? Thanks! EpicPupper 01:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi EpicPupper. There’s a record of every edit made to a Wikipedia page in its Help:Page history. You just need to find the WP:DIFF for the edit you want to see. You can also find a record of the edits you’ve made anywhere on Wikipedia in your “Contributions” history. Just look at the top of the page for the tab. The only edits you won’t find are ones that needed to be revision deleted or otherwise supressed for some reason. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: I am afraid no. Only WP:Admins (or, in some cases, only Oversighters) can see contents/edit summary of deleted edits, wether they are deleted by the page being deleted, revision deleted or supressed. Victor Schmidt (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

All right, thank you. I thought so too, just wanted to make sure. EpicPupper 00:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I create a bot account?

How can I create a bot account? amonguslover (contact me here) 00:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Amonguslover, and welcome back to the Teahouse. Please see Wikipedia:Bots and Wikipedia:Bot policy, but the gist of it is that you'll need a "useful and harmless" task for the bot to perform, some programming experience, approval from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), and a willingness to maintain the bot should it be found to contain issues. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amonguslover: Having experience editing Wikipedia manually would be very helpful before thinking about a bot. GoingBatty (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with GoingBatty about this. Anyone who intends to write a bot program to help solve a specific problem should have a significant history of manual edits to solve that same problem. That is the only way to gain knowledge about the ambiguities and edge cases that the bot must analyze. Such experience based knowledge is also essential to refine and improve the bot if and when it makes bad edits. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Where to start?

How you people find work here? Where can I start building this encyclopedia? --juslit ^tπlk 15:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Juslit Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Thanks for wanting to participate. A good place to find things to do is the Community Portal. You may also wish to use the new user tutorial. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Juslit You might also find the WP:ADVENTURE helpful! The Wikipedia Adventure will give you a more formal and academic introduction to Wikipedia. Bekkadn (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How to post a Soca Artist

I'm trying to post an article about a Soca artist, Problem. Child but it's being rejected because Wifi says that the references I'm using are not reputable.

I reviewed the list of requirements for a musician but I'm struggling because there's minimal "reputable" sources for Soca music. The artist has released dozens of known Soca tracks, 3 albums, has won awards for various carnivals, has worked with many other artists (e.g. Machel Montano, Bunji Garlin, Patrice Roberts), having even written many of their songs but none of these things seem to not be considered "reputable" by Wikipedia.

What can I do in order to have an article published? DarleneCab (talk) 03:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarleneCab: There are no references in Draft:Problem Child (musician). At the top of the draft is a big red template with a gray box explaining why the draft was declined. There are several links in the gray box explaining how to provide references. Once you provide independent reliable sources that demonstrates how the musician meets the notability criteria for musicians, you can resubmit your draft. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Going Batty. Thanks so much for your help but.... I still don;'t get it. I don't understand the message thrown back. According to Wiki, the artist must have won a Billboards award and have a record label and several other things. Soca has no Billboard section. Carnival awards are not recognized (even though Carnival has a Wiki article). If you look up Problem Child on YouTube or Spotify it's very clear that he's a real artist. How do I find out what sources Wiki considers to be reputable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarleneCab (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DarleneCab: The notability criteria for musicians state that musicians "may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria" - you don't have to "have won a Billboards award and have a record label and several other things." There's no doubt that Problem Child is a real artist, but not every artist meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Reliable sources include major newspapers, magazines, and other publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

As an add-on, if you're wondering whether or not the source you're using is reliable, you can search the reliable sources noticeboard and see if someone has started a discussion on it; if not, you can start one yourself for evaluation. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why my website has been tagged as spam by wikipedia. ?

WP:DENY. Java Hurricane 04:51, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Why my website has been tagged as spam by wikipedia ?

We have no connection with wikipedia and have never edited wikipedia. Please remove all refernce to our corporate website as spam website immediately

If some anonymous person adds our company website link to support some theory of theirs does it make our corporate website a spam website ?

We are not saying our webesite name here, so please give us some anonymous method of communication which is not public. Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk) 04:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

A non-transparent place to discuss the blacklist will not happen. This is not the place to contest a blacklisting; MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist is, and they generally do not respond well to site owners' requests their domain be removed from the blacklist. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Then, How can we contact folowing anonymous persons who are adding our links as spam to your website @User:Sro23, @User:Ajraddatz, @User:Bsadowski1, @User:Lofty_abyss, @User:Masti, @User:Matiia, @User:Vituzzu ?

I already linked to the proper venue for this matter above. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bl2phy7uwr9ty: You can contact editors on their talk page. For example, I am User:GoingBatty, and you can contact me on User talk:GoingBatty. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) GoingBatty (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It says there that requests from new users will not be considered. So then, how can we contact folowing anonymous persons who are adding our links as spam to your website @Sro23:, @Ajraddatz:, @Bsadowski1:, @Lofty abyss:, @Masti:, @Matiia:, @Vituzzu: ? What is the formal procedure system you have for content taking down ? Who is the grievance officer for this blog ? Thanks for your prompt reply, are you an officer of this website ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We are not a blog. We are an encyclopaedia. There is no formal structure, the lot of us are volunteers (and paid staff, barring extraordinary circumstances, do not edit or make editorial/content decisions in their capacity as such). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty (talk · contribs) . Should I contact those editors on their talk page ? Will they remove spam entry for our website or should I file a legal request ? Can you link to some past complaints where they have taken action ? And what is Arbitration procedure for this ? Bl2phy7uwr9ty (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bl2phy7uwr9ty: Since you don't want to provide an example, it's hard for me to understand your issue. At first, I thought your issue was that Wikipedia has added your website to its spam blacklist, and you want that reverted so there can be links from Wikipedia to your website. If so, please go to the proper venue for this matter as noted above. However, if your issue is that these editors are spamming articles by adding links from Wikipedia to your website, and you don't want links from Wikipedia to your website, then you can contact them on their talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 04:47, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked as NOT HERE following a report to AIV. This is obvious trolling. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Assistance in Enabling the "Macros" Option for Editing with Wikipedia

Dear Whomever it concerns,

I would like to ask if it's possible to have the "Macros" option to be enabled since I am currently editing my company's Wikipedia page and would like to insert a table of content.

Once I viewed different sources on how to insert the table, there were a mentioning of using Macros that easily created the table of content, and to get it activated I require assistance from the administrators.

Looking forward for your replies with regards to the subjected topic!

I wish whomever reads this post a Happy Easter to them and their family!

Best regards, Guy Bou Assi Guy Bou Assi (talk) 11:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

"I wish whomever reads this post a Happy Easter to them and their family!" – thank you!

As to the article: you have a conflict of interest and because of this you shouldn't edit your company's article; instead, you should propose changes to it on the article's talk page. See WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide and WP:Edit requests for more info.

Tables of contents are generated automatically for all articles that have more than four subheadings. I assume you're talking about Fosroc; it consists only of two paragraphs and a list of references, and so it doesn't have a TOC. As far as I know, there's no way to force it to appear. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kleinpecan: there is a way to force a TOC, __FORCETOC__. For more magic words, see Help:Magic_words. Victor Schmidt (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Guy Bou Assi: There is not enough content at Fosroc to merit a Table of Contents. Neither are there any independent sources there to show it meets WP:NCORP. I would suggest someone does a WP:BEFORE check, and considers putting it forward for a deletion discussion as not being sufficiently notable to remain here. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: May I ask why is there a request for deletion of the article? There are numerous independent sources that mentions the company which shall allow the articles presence to remain. Furthermore, I was recently informed with regards to the COI, which I shall reqest for an Edit request. Thank you @Kleinpecan: for your informative reply and I shall raise it accordingly.

@Nick Moyes and Kleinpecan: (Service) Editor forgot to sign. @Guy Bou Assi: (I assume that was you) please sign your posts when contributing to talk pages (like this one). Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

STATUS: Guy Bou Assi: An Articles for deletion (AfD) has not (yet) been initiated for Fosroc. Guy needs to declare PAID on User page and propose changes to the article on it's Talk page. In my opinion the existing three references do not confirm notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Schmidt: Thank you for the constructive comments regarding the use of Wikipedia, as I am a new member and still learning the basic and I thank you for your understanding. I shall request for an Edit request and provide the editor with references from independent sources that mention all the entries that are already submitted in the current article as well as provide further evidence from independent sources of the requested edits. Furthermore, thank you for your update that the article for deletion has not been initiated yet, which shall give me time to provide the editors the required references for the notability to comply with Wikipedia's requirements. Guy Bou Assi (talk) 11:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)Guy Bou Assi

Edit (removal) of my addition to Gay Literature article, Overview section

Why was addition re Asian gay literature removed by Njd-de? Explain pls. Updater852 (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Updater852: Welcome to the Teahouse! In the edit summary for this edit to the Gay literature article, Njd-de wrote "valid concern but we should improve this article instead of sending readers somewhere else". Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, you can discuss this at the article talk page, Talk:Gay literature, to work collaboratively to come to a consensus. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

FYI

– Merging sections. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That edit called attention to the geographical and cultural limitations of an article that is too broadly titled Gay Literature. It would more appropriately be called, perhaps, Western Gay Literature. My addition, like a host of others in Wikipedia, simply called users’ attention to a broader field. It could hardly be construed as a direction “ away” from this article, but is, instead, a pointer to additional resources. This is my first experience with unjustified interference with a serious addition. I am disappointed, and will simply say that I don’t have time to waste on editing if such frivolous edits are permitted to stand. Cheers to DE. Updater852 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Updater852. When you make an edit to an article which you think is an improvement, but which another editor reverts, the thing to generally do is to follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to sort things out by discussing them on the article’s talk page. The questions you asked about this on your user talk page are most likely go unanswered or at least not answered for quite a long time because there are probably not nearly as many people watching your user talk page as there are watching the article Gay literature and by default its corresponding talk page. Finally, while I can understand it can be disappointing when an edit we make is subsequently reverted, we should try to understand why and seek clarification before labeling something as “unjustified”. There might be a good policy- or guideline-based reason the edit was reverted that may not be obvious at first. Even if the revert was made in error, we should still assume good faith at first at least until the other edit gives us a good reason to question their motivation. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you've had a bad experience here, Updater852. Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, but I'd say that you didn't quite get the style of Wikipedia articles right with these edits. The text you added was commentary about the content of the article, which we wouldn't usually include part-way through an article. If you feel that the article doesn't present a sufficiently world-wide perspective on the topic, then it might be worth considering tagging it with Template:Globalize. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Scottish Cup page

Hi there, can someone please help me create a bracket for the knockout stage of the scottish cup.

Thanks 2A00:23C4:3A14:5201:E5DF:630D:2142:7DD9 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! I suggest you post your request on the article's talk page. If possible, provide an example of an article that has the bracket you're looking for. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will, 2A00:23C4:3A14:5201:8CCF:10DF:E2D4:EDA1 (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Secondary sources

What are secondary sources and how do you find them? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 64.121.103.144, and welcome to the Teahouse. Please see WP:SECONDARY as well as our article "secondary source". As far as where to find them, they come in all shapes and sizes, from news sources to books to magazines to academic journals. Not all of these necessarily are secondary sources, but those are a great place to look. If this question is specifically in reference to Draft:Starship SN11 – a fairly recent subject – news articles may be the best place to look. I'll note that the issue with your sources isn't that they aren't secondary sources; it's that these secondary sources are not necessarily reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 13:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

how do i reinstate valid info on Udhayanidhi_Stalin

revision 1015605526 deleted important info. what is the best way to restore it? Gi vi an (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an: Welcome to the Teahouse! It does not appear that there was important information deleted in that revision. Instead, it appears that you correctly fixed and expanded a reference. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Getting superimposed image with caption to display properly

[[file:

|288px|alt=]]

Luneburg reflectors (the marked protrusion) on an F-35

Hi, how do I get the image on the right to display properly as an image with arrow and caption? Can be using any other template too. I don't get why it shows the plain text syntax from inside the accolades. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pieceofmetalwork. I don't know the answer - I've never looked at these templates before - but it seems to me that {{Superimpose}} produces something that is syntactically a wikilink to an image, while {{multiple image}} wants bare filenames. I don't know if there is a way round this if you insist on using {{multiple image}}. --ColinFine (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Would there be any other template that can produce a box with caption? Without caption it can render fine. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pieceofmetalwork: Use {{Image frame}}:

{{Image frame
|content={{Superimpose
 |base=RNLAF F-35 F-001 05.jpg
 |base_width=288px
 |float=Red arrow southeast.svg
 |float_width=30px
 |x=123
 |y=45
}}
|caption= Luneburg reflectors (the marked protrusion) on an [[Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II|F-35]]
|width=288
}}

Kleinpecan (talk) 15:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that works perfect! Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROMO on the draft has been fixed

I have fixed wp:PROMO and rewritten in the wp:NPOV in content. Also the article has been submitted for review Draft:KaHa Pte, and according to the admin on my talk-page “a lot of the promotional material seems to be taken care of”, I have attended to the draft and as I await the Afc, would need help in reviewing the draft by pointing out whatever you think it needs.--Afí-afeti (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Afí-afeti (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I added a comment. -- Hoary (talk) 09:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hoary, I have attended to that also.--Afí-afeti (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like someone to write a biographical article about someone.

69.207.44.91 (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia. I suggest you start with improving existing articles, if you haven't done so already. When you're ready to start working on a new article, first read the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. If you don't have any relationship with the person, then I suggest you read all the information at Help:Your first article, and use the wizard to create a draft to be reviewed through the Articles for Creation process. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

69.207.44.91: Based on how you worded your question, it seems like Wikipedia:Requested articles is what you're looking for. Understand, however, that there are thousands of requested articles at any given time, and there's no guarantee an editor will even glance at your subject on the sprawling list of requested biographies, let alone decide to invest the time and effort necessary to create an article about them. Your best option, therefore, would be to follow GoingBatty's suggestion above. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting information

What should I do if two(or more) references have conflicting information? Steven Voutchkov (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steven Voutchkov: - an excellent question, and the source of much good discussion. First step is to check that your references are all reliable/independent. If one side is non-reliable than that solves it. Let's assume all are good sources. Next question is is it a 1:1 or 2:1 case, or is it a "6 sources say X, with one outlier saying Y"?. If the latter, then go with the consensus of sources. If more like the former, than it is generally good practice to say "some sources say X, other sources Y", and avoiding putting anything in Wikipedia's "voice". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Steven, and welcome to the Teahouse. About a week ago, I answered a similar question which can be found here in the archives. Hopefully this and Nosebagbear's advice helps! TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How to block someone

How do block someone from editing wikipedia? Superman011 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If this is a specific issue, please give us a URL and some details of the issue so we can point you precisely. In a technical sense, only admins can carry out blocks. They can be requested at a few different locations, such as WP:AIV for very clear-cut vandalism. The administrator's noticeboard handles more complicated cases. Please read the instructions at the top first, especially with regarding to notifying the other side(s) and that all parties' behaviour being looked at. Critically, in all but the rarest of cases the editor should been warned and communicated with first. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Superman011: Nosebagbear (talk)

@Superman011: Also see Wikipedia:Blocking policy. GoingBatty (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You created an account within the past 48 hours, no one has reverted any of your edits, and yet you are asking about blocking an editor? Feels premature. David notMD (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: If we don't stop HostBot from greeting new editors at once, it will become too powerful for any of us to control.^[sarcasm] TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 16:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

"The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions..." I suppose sometimes "friendly" is debatable. David notMD (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hostbot

When does hostbot sends invites on talk page? Is it automatic or some human gives it list of newcomers? Asking because I was not invited by it ☹😢. Instead I was welcomed by User:Timtrent 😁. I mean I am happy that I was welcomed by Human but why this discrimination with others ?? Parnaval (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Parnaval. Hostbot just follows an automated set of rules you can read about here. One of those rules is that "the user has NOT already received an invitation to participate in Teahouse". Once you received a welcome message from a human, your account was outside the criteria for an automated invite. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Seeking assistance on Stanford Prison Experiment article

Beyond my Wikipedia work, I’ve also been working with Dr Philip Zimbardo for many years. He became infamous after the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment went very badly. It’s 50 years later this year, and there’s a lot of new retrospectives and coverage. Many new sources.

In looking at our current en.wikipedia Stanford Prison Experiment article, there’s a lot of room for improvement. It’s got some big gaps and inaccuracies.

Given my proximity to Zim, I know I should not be the one editing directly. I’m looking for anyone here who could help update the article to make it more accurate and better than C-class.

According to page view stats, the SPE article is getting over 4,000 view per day. Anyone here interested in making at least the opening paragraph better?

Thanks much for any replies. My/our goal consistently is not to add bias into the article in any way - it’s to improve the NPOV, accuracy and quality however we can.

ps - I posted text Zimbardo sent me onto the SPE talk page yesterday, per his request. I haven’t previously seen how else to do this - When a non wikipedian wants to comment on an article about their work, is there a better protocol than sharing their comments on the article talk page? DrMel (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@DrMel: Hi there! You're welcome to post specific suggestions to the Talk:Stanford prison experiment or Talk:Philip Zimbardo with the {{request edit}} templates. Note that some editors may be overwhelmed by the 6,800-word message you shared on Talk:Stanford prison experiment. Instead, I suggest you provide smaller suggestions in "change x to y" format with independent reliable sources. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Tone

What is a tone of an article? 64.121.103.144 (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IP user. The tone of an article is the way it's written: the choice of words and grammatical constructions; how it addresses the reader (if it does at all). A newspaper, a magazine, a novel, a textbook, a note to friends, a tweet, all have their own tone. This is an encyclopaedia, and articles should have the tone of an encyclopaedia. See WP:TONE for more. --ColinFine (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hello, the article got rejected for reliable sources but how do they determine what isn't reliable? The publications are all notable. How can I get some clarity on this? This may just be a cultural/exposure issue. Karawilliamsonpr (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Karawilliamsonpr: see Reliable sources. The medium.com one, for example, is unreliable. See WP:RSP for a list of commonly discussed sources. Victor Schmidt (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

How to publish an article

Hello, I have finished writing my article so it is now in my sandbox. But I would like to lay it out so that it becomes public, although I do not find how I can do it. Did not get a single clue when I searched for help on Wikipedia. I would be happy if someone can help me and advise how I can do. Thanks in advance. Regards Khamlia (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You should submit it for review by adding {{subst:submit}} to the top of the article; I have done this for you. Kleinpecan (talk) 11:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Khamlia. Looking at the existing article at the Czech language Wikipedia and the draft you posted, it seems pretty clear you used the Czech article as the source for the translation. Please note for future reference that when you use (suitably original) content from an existing page in another page, including when you translate it into another language Wikipedia, you must provide copyright attribution to the authors of the page who own the copyright to their original contributions under the free copyright licenses our edits are automatically released under. (Your original edits are owned by you in the same way—here, the translation is a derivative work—and that ownership gives you the legal and moral rights to be credited in like manner when your edits are re-used.)

You can find instructions about how to give suitable copyright attribution for translations at Help:Translation#License requirements. The main page dealing with the broader issue is Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia (which also has a section on translations at the shortcut WP:TFOLWP).

You don't need to do anything to fix this here because I have provided the missing attribution with the edit summary I left in this edit (see WP:RIA – "Repairing insufficient attribution", as well as the working repair examples at Help:Dummy edit). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Marlborough - hypocrisy of Wikipedia - spout / criticise first before you have any idea about what you are pontificating about. 'SovalValtos' - no idea and zero judgement

I think the volunteers here, from here, can only repeat themselves. Perhaps, you'd like to speak about this directly to Jimmy? Here's the address. Farewell! Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've been a very longtime user of Wikipedia - since not long after it started. Until yesterday I'd never looked to add/edit anything, never needed to. But, on the prompting of a contact in Marlborough (who questioned the validity of the (now dead) entry link to Marlborough Townsite (overtly commercial, charge for every entry), suggested that Marlborough.news add a presence to that page as we are, and have been for some significant time, the prime source of news and information for Marlborough and the surrounding area. This was duly done - created an account and then added a very simple entry. But soon after, someone / something (bot / human?) calling them/it self 'SovalValtos' decided that this listing was an infringement of everything that Wikipedia stood for and removed the listing, chastising me for adding such an 'advertising' and 'promotional' entry. What this 'SovalValtos' hadn't done is any research into what/who we are. We are a very small, independent volunteer group that creates an important source of News / Info for the town. We are the only journalists who cover what goes on in the town - Police, Town Council et al. We don't take anything out. We do charge (some) of our advertisers (charities are generally FOC), income goes primarily to running the site (hosting, third party external development etc.) and any income over will go back into the community for local groups that perform a valuable community function but find income difficult to get - but vital. Example - when Wiltshire Council recently slashed the grants to keep day centres open for the elderly, we stepped in with as much as we could afford. We also support youth groups, sports clubs etc. Generally we don't want any publicity (what we do isn't news - not on our site anyway and we don't look for such), but sometimes for a sports club we will get a small display ad. Our ethos isn't about making money for ourselves. Unlike just about every other media presence or listing on Wikipedia. I cited The Guardian as an example. Do they pay themselves - of course, plenty. Are they commercial? Of course. Is every one of their mentions/entries/listings 'promotional' and / or 'advertising' - you bet. So, when 'SovalValtos' removes our listing and chastises us for breaking the Wikipedia rules - hell, what hypocrisy - or should that be Wikipocricy? I've asked that our listing stay well away from Wikipedia - we don't need it, we've done pretty well building a very strong and loyal audience over the past decade without any 'assistance' (hahahahaha) from Wikipedia, we'll leave that to the 'dead links' still showing on the Town page. I've contributed plenty over the years in answer to Jimmy Wales pleas. I had believed in Wikipedia. A fool, I realise now the level and standard of hypocrisy, if my recent experience is anything to go by is significant and biased heavily against honest potential users / contributors such as us. Enough, don't want anything to do with Wikipedia so please delete my account (and confirm forthwith that this has been done) and also make sure that our entry is removed (or stays removed). Guess you will continue with the 'dead' commercial link above where we were?? Neil Goodwin (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on external links is that they should be kept to a minimum and not be promotional. In light of the sheer number of links in that section, your best bet for editing there is to remove any which appear to be dead, tangential or otherwise not enhancing the article's content. Note that the official website of Marlboro is already at the top of the list. Quisqualis (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021‎ (UTC)

Deleting an account is not possible. This may be lucky, in view of the number of people who continue to use the accounts whose deletion they've requested/demanded. -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

There were a very few words, none of which were promotional or advertising. I'm not going to mess with any other links - that's your job and seeing what you've done to our very few words - you appear to be sufficiently adept. The official website of Marlborough is that of the Town Council - of course it should be top of the list. But they don't carry Marlborough News, per se. We do, as would any other local newspaper. Could a Council really report on it's own meetings? Could a Government do the same? I think (hope?) that you could answer that yourselves.

I've said plenty, wasted far to much time on what I will from now on treat with the contempt that it deserves....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Goodwin (talk • contribs) 19:07, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Neil, most editors will have no issue with local news sites. The issue is how they are added and by who. In general addition by a person who shows clear affiliation with the site is subject to concerns over advertising etc. This isn't personal: bear in mind how large the wikipedia project is and how many people are involved. Yes it's a form of wikipediocracy in many ways, but it also helps to prevent the saturation of what is meant to be an encyclopedia with unverified external links. As you point out: some are already deadlinked on the article, what confidence would any user have that your organisation has any greater durability vs self promotion?

Ultimately the policy that guides this decision process is one of our most rigid. It is obvious that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if Wikipedia guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. it is not an extraordinary policy, but it is also hard to ensure any new user is aware if it prior to starting, and other editors should have evaluated the page to see if it was worth re-adding (I haven't checked to see what subsequently happened). Koncorde (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Neil Goodwin. Please understand that all Wikipedia editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs; so, It's not really anyone's "job" to fix things that you think might be wrong with a particular article. If you think you can do so yourself, it's OK for you to be WP:BOLD. If you tried to do that already and were reverted by another editor, then you're welcome to follow up in accordance with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see whether article talk page discussion. Since the issue you're having seems to relate to an external link, you might want to look at Wikipedia:External links for some information on what types of links Wikipedia generally thinks are OK to add to articles. Most experienced editors like SovalValtos only revert an edit outright when they think it's a clear violation of some Wikipedia major policy and guideline; moreover, most are more than happy to explain why, but not many are likely to respond favorably to an post filled with all kinds of bad-faith innuendo like the one you made here. There are many things about Wikipedia that new editors or newish editors don't know about; so, it's OK to make mistakes. However, when such editors criticize Wikipedia or other Wikipedia editors without having any idea about what they're pontificating about, it's not going to make others want to try and help them sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Neil Goodwin: The addition was promotional. You wrote:

Marlborough.news - Marlborough's news and information website – produced independently as a traditional newspaper providing news and information for Marlborough

That's longer than any of the seven other external links, and it has three "Marlborough", four "news" (including "newspaper") and two "information". Gee, I wonder whether the site has information and news about Marlborough. You made "Marlborough's news and information website" part of the link text although the text is not at the site. I don't know your intentions but that's a type of keyword spamming SEO people may try to influence search engine rankings. An uninvolved editor would be unlikely to write that entry. "Marlborough's news and information website" also gives the impression that it's official or the only site with news and information about Marlborough. It's not. You have a conflict of interest and can use {{Request edit}} on Talk:Marlborough, Wiltshire to suggest edits about your website. By the way, I see the html title of the site is "Marlborough News - Marlborough News". Seriously? I hope no search engine is dumb enough to reward that on searches for Marlborough news. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Another thing worth noting is that adding links to your own site does not help your site a whit - Wikipedia uses the nofollow flag, which tells search engines that respect robots.txt (i.e. the majority of them) to ignore outgoing links from Wikipedia when determining search engine results. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 04:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hell, this goes on a long time and involves lots of people..... Suggest that anyone who wishes to opine - and there appear to be plenty - begins to understand about journalism, particularly grass roots local journalism that is there for the community (not the local political authority). And start to think about how it's run - by volunteers - (aren't you all volunteers too?) Then comment, but keep quiet and don't spout any hypocritical rubbish beforehand. Sorry Jimmy, you've lost me as a (regular) contributor..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Goodwin (talk • contribs) 10:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've no desire to 'resolve any conflict / dispute', I'm saying again, as I have above previously that I have no wish for marlborough.news to be listed in Wikipedia. We aren't going to lose any audience, we wouldn't gain any if the listing was still there. There isn't (now) any dispute / conflict, you've made your own pompous arrogant pontifications regarding what is acceptable and what isn't, and a small volunteer independent local news organisation where volunteers do everything and take nothing out comes under the 'non' acceptable' heading......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Goodwin (talk • contribs) 19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Neil Goodwin

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why can bots create edit conflicts?

I was editing this page and I had put in, lots and lots and work into the page, with headers and everything, and then there was an edit conflict with a god damn anomie bot? How does that happen? I was so dissapointed and angry after all that work down the drain, please someone manage this feature and how do I get around this next time? Just copy and paste the source edit? LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: Welcome to the Teahouse! Edit conflicts happen to all of us. Ways to avoid edit conflicts include completing the work as a draft before moving it to mainspace, saving smaller incremental edits, or by adding {{in use}} at the top of the article while you were working on it. If it happens in the future, you can immediately copy your text to your favorite text editor/word processor, then reload the page, and edit again. It doesn't appear that User:AnomieBOT edited the article (another bot did), and all editors are expected to be civil, even in edit summaries. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Too late for you, but I believe that when an edit conflict appears, there is an option of scrolling down, copying all of the content you created, then leaving the page, and Wikipedia. Logging back into Wikipedia should allow you to open the article and reinsert your new content. David notMD (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I don't think it's necessary to log out of Wikipedia. Reloading the page should be sufficient. GoingBatty (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Oh the irony!) @LongWinterBranches158: I do sympathise - it has happened to me, and it can be deeply and utterly frustrating when you appear to have lost work you've spent ages writing. Only on mobile do I ever lose work entirely (when my phone goes on standby). When editing Wikipedia on a PC I can't remember that ever happening. Yes, I still get innumerable edit conflicts (especially when replying here!) but my work is always retrievable, either by being displayed in the 'edit conflict' window, or by clicking the 'back' button on my browser, and then copying the redisplayed edits I was making. If you go to your Preference settings, and click 'Beta features' you can activate a particularly useful edit conflict tool called Paragraph-based edit conflict which clearly displays the edits you might be in conflict with.

I can understand why you don't want to re-do your improvements to Pervomaysk, Sakhalin Oblast, but GoingBatty has made some useful suggestions to avoid this happening in the future. Thank you for all your contributions. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Haha yea I sorely apologise for my tone, I was angry at the circumstances of course, it wasn’t the bots fault. Is there any way to get back the lost work after it’s gone though? I think a good idea would be to implement an auto save function or something into Wikipedia whilst ediitng — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: You might be able to find your text if you use your browser's back arrow enough times, but it's not saved on Wikipedia. GoingBatty (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: Were you using the visual editor? There's a chance it might still be there if you try and edit the page again. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi and sorry to hear about the edit conflict. Always a pain and a downside of collaborative editing. If you are on a device that supports multiple tabs then you can open the article again in a new tab and copy text from the edit conflict tab to make an edit that combines your work with whoever saved an edit just before you tried to. I doubt that works on a smartphone, but it works on tablets and PCs. Otherwise good practice is to save frequently, at least every ten minutes, and edit by section rather than the whole page. If you are editing a brand new article or one that is topical you need to save more frequently. I was editing the article on Sarah Palin on the night when John McCain announced her as his running mate - that article peaked at 25 edits per minute that evening and I dread to think how many edit conflicts. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It happened again with my latest Congo site, same situation, lost everything to a bot edit conflict, can’t trust this site — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LongWinterBranches158. Maybe try starting with a WP:DRAFT and then moving it to the WP:MAINSPACE when you think it's ready. For some reason, you seem to be starting a new article in the mainspace, WP:DRAFTIFYing the article, and then re-adding it back to the mainspace latter on. You did such a thing at least at Pervomaysk, Sakhalin Oblast and Wamaza as far as I can tell. When you create anything in the mainspace, it's there for anyone to edit at anytime; the same applies to the draft namespace as well, but many editors will leave a draft alone as a courtesy to the creator unless they're asked to help improve it or there's some clear policy or guideline issue that needs addressing. Moreover, when you create an article in the mainspace and then move it to the draft namespace, you're going to attract the attention of bots, etc. looking for such pages to tagged them with templates like {{Drafts moved from mainspace}} or added them to appropriate maintenance categories, etc. There are some things (like non-free content and certain types of categories) which are OK for articles that are not OK for drafts per WP:DRAFTS#Preparing drafts that might cause the page to be flagged for review and edited by a bot. You might be able to avoid edit conflicts with such bots by simply waiting a bit longer after draftifying a page to give the bots a chance to find the page and do whatever they've been set up to do: however, it simply seems better to just start off as a draft, work on improving it at your own pace, and then move it to the mainspace yourself or submit it to WP:AFC review when your ready. If the page you want to improve has already been created in the mainspace, sometimes adding a template like {{Under construction}} or {{In use}} can help reduce the possibility of an edit conflict, but there's no guarantee. So, it might be better to work on the improvement in your user sandbox first and then incorporate it into the article when you're ready. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting after an edit warring block

A user was recently blocked for 48 hrs for editwarring, immediately after his block was up he went back and reverted the two pages which he was edit warring on, whats the best course of action to take? A discussion has been started on one of the article talk pages however even after multiple editors explained why his edits were reverted he still either doesn't get it or is pretending not to get it. It seems likely hes not going to budge from his position, if no resolution can be reached through discussion whats the best thing to do. Daiichi1 (talk) 05:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Daiichi1. I've asked the administrator who issued the previous block to take a look at this. Repeating the behavior that resulted in a block is not really a good idea and almost always leads to another much longer block. My suggestion to you would just be to avoid anything that might be perceived to be edit warring yourself and don't post anything which might provoke a further escalation of things on article's talk page. Give the blocking administrator or another administrator a chance to try see what is what and figure out whether any further action is needed. Even if the other editor refuses to do so, try to remain cool and keep focused on the content being discussed. It might even be a good idea to take a break from that particular article while things are being sorted out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Daiichi1: The other editor has been blocked again. I suggest you stay away from their user talk page while they're blocked or appealing their block, even if they specifically mention you or lash at you in some of the comments they make. There are two administrators dealing with the editor now, and they will address any inappropriate comments made. At some point the blocked editor will either listen to the advice given by these administrators or will end up having their block extended even further and their ability to edit their own talk page taken away if they don't. If they do get unblocked, try to give them another chance to show they are WP:HERE and sincerely resolve any disputes through discussion and try not to bait them into doing something inappropriate because your actions can end up being reviewed as well. If they simply go back to the same behavior as before, then don't bother with reverting them or warning them; simply seek administrator assistance asap. Editors are given second and sometimes third chances, but at some point the community may decide enough is enough. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Setting up a company page

How does one create a company page on wikipedia. There are plenty of outside sources to use as references but there still seems to be an error when it comes to reviewing and accepting the page and they want it to be deleted. Reitler Kailas Rosenblatt (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Reitler Kailas Rosenblatt, what's the name of the page you're trying to have created? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: it's too late. I have deleted their page as unambiguous promotion and have soft-blocked their account for being a promotional username and probable shared use. All three are breaches of our policies. The user clearly thinks Wikipedia is like LinkedIn and offers free corporate business pages. We don't. They need to appreciate this is an encyclopaedia of notable things, and not a place to advertise themselves. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

Good afternoon! Last December I created a Wikipedia article for Stephen Fichter carefully following the Wikipedia format. In an effort to address every detail for publication of the article, I have an inquiry regarding conflict of interest (COI). My question is twofold. Since I am a professional colleague and consequently a friend of Father Stephen, I was concerned about your COI caveat. It is suggested that a potential conflict be mentioned at the outset. As a sidebar, since time has elapsed from my initial writing of the article, I had every intention of working on the COI issue in December, but COVID has impacted my life in a very personal and challenging way. I am just now getting back to my desk to begin my work again. That said, I have read extensively all that you provide in the way of articles and see that there are three simple ways to mark your article accordingly. I believe that I will choose option 2 (statement in the edit summary) to explain that I am not being paid to write this article. The reason for writing the article was not to promote any specific project of Father Stephen’s, but rather to include him in the Wikipedia roster for accomplishments that clearly meet your notability criteria. For example, Stephen is a published author, movie producer, app developer, an often quotable source for New Jersey newspapers and sometimes the New York Times, and talk guest on Sirius, CBS, and Relevant radio shows. He enjoys notoriety in New Jersey. As you can see from the article I created, he is the pastor of one of the largest parishes in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey and has worked as a sociologist/researcher for 13 years for CARA (the leading research institute for the Catholic Church). So would you agree that option 2 is the best way to disclose this background information regarding my association with Father Stephen?

I believe my article is currently under review for publication. At this stage, save for adding the COI disclaimer, I believe I have done everything I can to see this article through to publication. Can you tell me if there is anything to do at this point to expedite its publication? Is there a way to know where the article may be in the approval process? I apologize for all of these questions. This is my first time to submit an article to Wikipedia, and I want to make sure that my submission meets your best standards. Thank you so much for your kind help with all of this!Frank S. Weaver (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC) Frank S. Weaver (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Frank S. Weaver, hello, friend! You said a lot of words, so I'll just address the final concern: You ask how to speed up the review process, but the answer is simply this: you can't. There are more than 5,000 drafts awaiting review and they are reviewed in no particular order. There is no way to tell how long yours will take, it could happen today, it could be in several months. You must be patient, as the drafts are reviewed by a handful of reviewers (myself included). Because of the high volume, editors who ask here don't get preferential treatment over anyone else for the review process. I do wish you the best of luck with this draft. Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Frank S. Weaver. This will not speed up anyone's decision to initially take on an AfC assessment, but it might speed up the overall process by helping to ward against any extended time span involved in a decline and resubmission process. I suggest you go through with an eye toward making the tone a bit more neutral in parts. I should say the draft is not as extreme as we often see (many drafts read as absolutely blatant advertisements for their subjects; hagiography if you will), but nevertheless, it does have some tone issues. I would point you especially to the language used in relation to VITA – "a candid, from the heart..., heart-wrenching life decisions... This project is a 23-year-old labor of love..."

To provide some other hopefully instructive criticism, the lead section of an article should provide a summary of what's written in more detail in the body of the article. See more at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Your lead contains the sentence: "In ...date..., Fichter presented his third book, ....NAME..., to Pope Francis". This "presentation" information is not mentioned in the body at all, much less in more detail, and I don't really know what it means when you say it was "presented" to the Pope.

One other issue is boning up the attribution details of the citations. To give you an example (related to the sentence I just spoke about, the citation for the presentation of the book to the Pope), you cite what looks like the name of a webpage, New Jersey Catholic, the URL and an access date. It's actually a magazine, and what's provided are not the key attribution details of the source. What I would expect be related here is–yes, the name of the magazine (but in a manner that indicates its a magazine, in context) and its edition date, but more importantly, the title of the article containing the verifying detail, its author(s), the page number its found at, its date if separate from the date of the magazine edition, and other typical details to allow a reader to locate the work themselves, such as the magazine's applicable volume and issue numbers.

There's is no exact right "formula" you must follow for citations but because it's a magazine, instead of using {{cite web}} I would suggest using {{Cite magazine}}, the exact code you use to provide the key information is trivial (I could have done this with a manual citation, for instance, or used {{cite journal}} instead, etc.). Anyway, rather than explain in prose, let me just provide what I think is a very fully attributed citation for this use. I will thus end this sentence with a footnote to a recommended better citation detail; demonstrate below the code I used to create it; and show the display of the footnote below that.^[1] Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

<ref>{{Cite magazine|work=New Jersey Catholic|date=July–August 2019|title=Church Leadership in the 21st Century|last=Fichter|first=Stephen|url=https://catholicmagazines.org/magazine-archive/new-jersey-catholic/new0719|page=23|volume=6|issue=6|publisher=Archdiocese of Newark|oclc=85487339}}</ref>

References

^ Fichter, Stephen (July–August 2019). "Church Leadership in the 21st Century". New Jersey Catholic. Vol. 6, no. 6. Archdiocese of Newark. p. 23. OCLC 85487339.

Editing Rights Commandeered

Robinvp11 refused to allow the content of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chalgrove_Field to be changed. Logical reasoning is met with, ‘Wikipedia articles must not contain original research’. Four years of detailed referenced material was overwritten on the whim of Robinvp11. His reasoning is on the ‘Talk’ page for all to judge. Removal of my work was in violation of Wikipedia’s rules but my dispute resulted in a convoluted argument with the administrators who decided my ‘crime’ was so bad they blocked my account and removed my editing rights.

Editing rights were re-instated but changes to the Battle of Chalgrove Field resulted in a brief editing war. Robinvp11 threatened with menaces, and as happened before, that my editing rights would be withdrawn if John Chalgrove again edited the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage.

Robinvp11’s entry to the Battle of Chalgrove Field webpage is based mainly on sources that are attributed to Lord Nugent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Nugent-Grenville,_2nd_Baron_Nugent – heading ‘Nugent the Historian’ has the whole story. Nugent’s fiction corrupted historians’ and Robinvp11’s understanding of the history of the battle of Chalgrove and John Hampden’s involvement.

The Teahouse has a great tradition of seeking out the truth but will Robinvp11’s last words be, ‘Wikipedia articles must not contain original research’. Can the Teahouse residents confirm they will protect John Chalgrove’s editing rights? John Chalgrove (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, please read Wikipedia: No original research as you have been told numerous times before, and please do not attack other editors. You have edit warred with more than one user name at John Hampden to get your original research included, the place to discuss the content would be Talk:John Hampden. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

John Chalgrove, I'm not sure that there are any Teahouse residents. I'm a mere Teahouse denizen. Time and energy permitting, I'll work to protect anybody's rights to edit in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This edit, for one, flagrantly contravenes Wikipedia:No original research and thus should not have been made and, once made, should have been reverted. If the fruits of the research are as described (which I am willing to believe), then it may be published in a respected, peer-reviewed journal, and then editors independent of the research will be welcome to cite it as they improve this and other relevant articles. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Need help in posting an article

Hi I am trying to add a page to talk about a famous person who has been doing relentless service in imparting deep philosophical concepts. But every time I publish my draft(also in sandbox) its being declined. I am not able to understand the various rules inorder to successfully post the content. The content is original and is not copied from any where else.

I need help please inorder to post the content. SriChalapathiRao (talk) 23:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@SriChalapathiRao: Welcome to the Teahouse. It appears you are writing about yourself given the similarity between your username and the subject, which is highly discouraged. Your sandbox also appears to be highly promotional. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SriChalapathiRao. I really do not mean to be rude, but I do feel you should try using LinkedIn or equivalent sites to tell people about yourself. This encyclopaedia selects its content based upon Notability Criteria, not on what we think about ourselves. I'm afraid you will need to provide links to independent sources that have written about you, and not to apply unsubstantiated Einstein-related waffle to promote yourself. I could do the same if I chose to - but I don't. You also have an abundantly clear Conflict of Interest, which you should address by following our guidance. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Outdated reference

Hello, I'm just reading Wikipedia and found a reference that was outdated I found another reference on the same website the Title in the website is the same to the Wikipedia's source title thingy, should I add an Archive URL, edit the URL to the reference, or add an Archive URL and add a new reference? Randomuserontheinter (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Randomuserontheinter. If I understand you correctly, a link used by a Wikipedia citation is dead (i.e. no longer leads to the intended source). However, you found a live link to the intended source. In that case, I would add an archive URL (I prefer to find an archive link with the old, dead URL if that's possible, but this is a minor stylistic choice) and then add the new, live link to the 'URL' parameter in the citation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Assessment table

Hello, I am trying to reactivate the assessment table for WP:FISHING. I tried to do it manually via revert @User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Fishing, but it didn't work. Jerm (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

secondary source question

Njikecat (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Njikecat: What is your question? RudolfRed (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Asuming this is about your draft Draft:David Russell (artist). The few references you provided mention him by name but are not about him at some length. The list of what you call Sources adds nothing. IMDb is not considered a reliable source. Listing films he worked on adds nothing, because there is no verification that he worked on them . David notMD (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Njikecat: I am not sure if I am formatting book and article sources correctly. Please let me know if I need to change something. Please also confirm that the sources are suitable secondary sources, so that I can resubmit the article for review and posting. Thank you very much for helping. Njikecat (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)}}

No. For example, for many of them, there is a Wikilink to a Wikipedia article about the news source (magazine, newspaper, whatever). What is needed is a website reference that goes to the exact item about Russell. Also, the master class ref does not contribute to notability, as it is by Russell, not about him. It can be left in (without listing all the places it was broadcast), but citations to publications about him are needed. David notMD (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Likewise, the Moulin Rouge ref confirms he did storyboards, but is not ABOUT him. David notMD (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I find "visual editor" mode?

Thank you!!

VPEllipsisW05 (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@VPEllipsisW05: Welcome to the Teahouse! See Wikipedia:VisualEditor for instructions. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Oversight and IP addresses

Can an IP address ask for an Oversight on request, per bullet point 4, item 1, WP:OSPOL? If yes, is it a one-time opportunity? --2001:569:7B92:5500:417:8C85:BF60:A0B6 (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

From what I can see, it is intended for new users who did not realize the IP address would be shown instead of a username. I don't know if "one time only" is enforced, but after you request once, you can't really say you didn't know. RudolfRed (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to edit Wikipedia without having their IP address displayed should register an account. It is free, easy, and provides very high standards of anonymity for those who prefer it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have one. I am just wondering. --2001:569:7B92:5500:417:8C85:BF60:A0B6 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As someone who once got logged out in the middle of an edit and had my IP exposed for that one edit, emailing Oversight fixed things pretty quickly. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

About Akwa North

I have tried editing awka north page many times but it seems am getting it all wrong please how do i start editing?--ZUES the son KUJAS (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC) ZUES the son KUJAS (talk) 05:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, ZUES the son KUJAS. Your edits are unreferenced, and were reverted for that reason. Additions to Wikipedia must be verifiable, which means that you need to provide references to reliable sources. Please read Referencing for beginners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have a few problems.

Does this draft have a few problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Univision_Now ItsJustdancefan (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Welcome to the Teahouse. According to the reviewers, yes, there are. Please read their comments (which start with a

). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

which country built the first jet airliner

115.189.91.76 (talk) 08:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The Teahouse is for questions about using and editing Wikipedia; you should ask this question at the reference desk, or read the article on jet airliners which says: "The first airliners with turbojet propulsion were experimental conversions of the Avro Lancastrian piston-engined airliner, which were flown with several types of early jet engine, including the de Havilland Ghost and the Rolls-Royce Nene", and "The first purpose-built jet airliner was the British de Havilland Comet which first flew in 1949 and entered service in 1952, though it was withdrawn from service due to serious structural problems." Kleinpecan (talk) 08:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Saudi cricket

Two articles on this subject have been recently edited into a bit of a tangle, and I'm not quite sure how to untangle them. The article Saudi Cricket Centre describes an organisation called Saudi Arabian Cricket Federation. Meanwhile, there is a new page at Saudi Arabian Cricket Federation which has both a redir to Saudi Cricket Centre and, rather redundantly, also content which more or less duplicates the earlier article. I don't know if these are two separate organisations or one is a rebranding of the other, and whether both articles are therefore needed or only one (and if so which one). Cheers, DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing. This might be a good thing to ask about at WT:CRICKET since the members of that WikiProject probably know enough about the subject matter to help sort things out. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DoubleGrazing I have had a look, and it's definitely a duplicate article, so I reverted it (cut-and-paste moves like this aren't allowed). It looks like the organisation may have changed its name, so I've started a move discussion about what the correct name should be. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To mention that I am hired to work for a Company.

Hi Wikipedians, I have recently received an Offer for creating a Wikipedia Page for a Company. It would be nice if anyone would come up front and help me out in this. Yes, I also need to confess that I am being paid to do this. I have read all the rules and norms for Wikipedia's notability criteria. So, It would be nice If someone would be by my side so that I do not do something wrong here. It would also be nice if the person would review the Company's Profile. Pls do message me in my Talk page, for helping me. Thanks. Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

First, declare on your User page that you are being paid to create a draft of an article for _____ (name of company). Paid editors are expected to have a level of competency. However, it appears that you started your account recently, and have yet to make any article edits. David notMD (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, Please do check my User Page for the Declaration. And can you help me out in this?? Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I will not help you create an article on a topic I know nothing about. You can follow the instructions at WP:YFA to create and then submit a draft. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) describes what is necessary for a company to be notable. David notMD (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jocelin Andrea. The fact that you're charging someone to create a Wikipedia article about their company when an article could be created about the company for free if it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is between you and said company; however, all editors are WP:VOLUNTEERs so it's a bit odd that you're asking them to help you do this. I'm assuming the company entered into an agreement with you because none of the people associated with it either (1) want to be bothered with trying to create an article about it themselves, (2) know how to go about creating a Wikipedia article about anything, or (3) a combination of the the two. I'm also assuming that they are paying you because you stated that you could create an article and told them that you know how to properly do so. You're free to try as long as you comply with WP:PAID, but don't be disappointed if you don't find others willing to help you get paid.

A couple of other of things you might want to consider and explain to the company are Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:Ownership of content, and Wikipedia:Law of unintended consequences.

Assuming that you're successfully able to create a draft that is approved via Wikipedia:Articles for creation, that's pretty much where your involvement and ability to control things will end. If a draft you create eventually is upgraded to article status, neither you nor the company will have any final say or otherwise editorial control over the article's content; moreover, another editor could tag of flag the article for issues and even possibly deletion if they feel something about it doesn't meet relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and there would be nothing that you or the company could do about it outside of normal Wikipedia channels.

Assuming that you've already explained all of this to the company and they still want you to go ahead, then best of luck to you. If, however, neither you nor the company were aware of any of these things, then you might want to fill them in before they start issuing checks; otherwise, they might be quite angry if they find out later on that things don't work exactly as they thought.

Finally, the frankness of my post might give the impression that I'm angry about this kind of thing, but I'm actually not. There are many paid editors who are able to make positive contributions to Wikipedia and adhere to relevant policies and guidelines. Some editors are completely against COI and paid editing just on principle, but I only think it's a problem when it's not being done in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. At the same time though, expecting others to do your work for you is probably not going to receive a favorable response from most editors. So, if you have a question about a Wikpedia policy or guideline, then perhaps others will be willing to help; however, trying to get someone to actually help you write the article is probably going to be another story. -- Marchjuly (talk)

Written far better than I could have managed. David notMD (talk) 11:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

references with html markup, what is allowed and not allowed

for example on Aerobic_exercise#cite_ref-26 vs is italiced using . should i delete it? what about other html markup? Gi vi an (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Gi vi an. If the markup mimics the source then it should usually be kept. In this case the source [14] writes vs which renders as vs. It's in italics for me. HTML element#em says: "Emphasis (conventionally displayed in italics)". I think it's best for us to use italics and not .... PrimeHunter (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an: Converted | title = Aerobic vs anaerobic exercise to | title = Aerobic ''vs'' anaerobic exercise (and other general fixes). GoingBatty (talk) 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Editing Feedback

I'm new to the process of editing, and I added a comment in an article about cystic fibrosis (added something about dornase alpha) then I added the reference. I want to know if there is anything else that I should do or I'm missing something Nmlim (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC) Nmlim (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nmlim, no, you don't need to do anything else. As long as you added a reference to a reliable source, it should be fine. Thanks for dropping by! MEisSCAMMER^(talk)_Hello! 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nmlim: Welcome to the Teahouse! In case you didn't notice, another editor tweaked your addition by changing "it's" to "it is", per Wikipedia's Manual of Style. While we can be informal on talk pages like this, we should write more formally in articles. Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ugly Gerry

Why was my ugly gerry passage reported for vandalism Whatergun110 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Whatergun110. Your edit was reverted as possible vandalism by an anti-vandalism bot. Please report the false positive, which will help improve the performance of the bot. My guess is that the word "janky" caught the bot's attention, since it is a slang word sometimes used as a personal attack. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Whatergun110, your edit (which you described obscurely as "another sentence") claimed that the title of this web page is not

"There's a new downloadable font inspired by gerrymandered congressional districts"

but instead

"There's a new downloadable font inspired by gerrymandered congressional. This font was made when Ben Doessel and James Lee, the creators 'After seeing how janky our Illinois 4th district had become' tried to spread awareness about the topic. districts".

Unsurprisingly, this is false. -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the writing is so poor that it is almost incomprehensible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, Cullen328, it appears that the OP intended to add this sentence to one place where it might belong, but accidentally added it both there and within this page title. After seeing how janky the Illinois 4th district had become (which I'm sorry to say doesn't surprise me) the pair tried to spread awareness of the matter via font design: fair enough. -- Hoary (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for answering this. I am new with editing wikipedia without vandalizing it

Whatever the explanation, and I assume good faith, it was an error that combined with the word "janky" brought the edit to the attention of the anti-vandalism bot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A few minutes ago I readded "janky": appropriately, I believe. Time for me to go to bed; when I wake I'll see what Cluebot made of my edit. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi.. I have updated the page of danish performance group, Sisters Hope at their site. I can see that a discussion from 2014 flagged it for being promotional. A lot have happened since so I wonder if (and how) the page can stopped being flagged as being promotional now?

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sisters_Hope Nfr444 (talk) 14:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to The Teahouse. This is the English Wikipedia, the article you have linked to is on the German Wikipedia which is a separate project. Theroadislong (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Danish not German: notice the "da". MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 14:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That link is for Danish Wikipedia- every language Wikipedia is run separately, so you'd need to ask for help at the Danish language Wikipedia helpdesk. Their help desk appears to be da:Hjælp:Nybegynderforum. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing accidental warnings?

I was accidentally given a warning because somebody reverted the wrong user by mistake. They've undone their revert with a edit description saying it was a mistake. Does that mean I'm allowed to remove the warning from my talk page? Thanks! Thattransgirl (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Thattransgirl: You can remove pretty much anything from your own talk page for any reason other than a notice from an administrator notifying you if you've been blocked. GMG ^talk 14:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo Even block notices can be removed; the things that cannot be removed are listed at WP:BLANKING, and they all involve community processes, like prior declined unblock requests while blocked. 331dot (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Yes. You are correct. I was speaking from memory and confused unblock notices with declined unblock requests. GMG ^talk 15:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Singature without a question

Boogieside0807 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Boogieside0807: Do you have a question? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

User Name change

How can I change my user name please guide. Thanks and blessings Shahgill (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, see Wikipedia:Changing username. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

What is the approved format for citations which are to primary source documents available publicly in an archive repository?

I've been reading the guidance on reliable sources and see that it is ok to cite original records that are held in an archive office, providing they are publicly available. I see there are templates for citing books, journals, websites but there does not seem to be one for those I mentioned. Could some one point me to a suitable template or an example I could follow? Many thanks Buckland1072 (talk) 15:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Buckland1072: {{cite archive}} ? Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Buckland1072. It really does depend on what the source actually is. To give an example, if I was citing a newspaper that I found in an archive, I would still use {{cite news}} because of its fitness for newspaper specifications – and would just use the URL of the archive for the convenience link it provides (as with almost every question we get here in the hypothetical, the specifics—the actual context—would allow a more tailored answer). As to whether it's "okay", in association with whether the source is "publicly available", the issues that come to mind are whether the location the source is found is violating copyright, and whether its archiving at whatever that location is meets the definition of "published" for purpose of verifiability. But if those threshold concerns are not implicated, then the use would have to meet the restrictions of WP:PRIMARY (and the additional limitations on use of primary sources in biographies of a living people). Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help. I'll follow up on the links you provided Fuhghettaboutit and experiment with that template Victor Schmidt. Best wishes Buckland1072 (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I need some help

I have created many articles about Kentucky Routes, which I try to create redirects for them but the thing is I need help making successful redirects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGs2007 (talk • contribs)

@TheGs2007: See Help:Redirect. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Olympic Gull

I'm writing an article on Glaucous-winged x Western gulls in my sandbox, and am wondering what to call it. They are most commonly known as Olympic gulls, but are also sometimes known as Puget Sound gulls. Any thoughts? Note- I'm working on the article and this version is just a start. Abies balsamica (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello there @Abies balsamica:. The Wikipedia style guide for names recommends using the most common name as the title of the article. Other names can also be mentioned in the lead sentence. --Jayron 32 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Abies balsamica. Noting the article subject, if you're not aware of it, you might find Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds helpful here (it even has a section on bird names and article titles), as well as recommended layout, use of taxoboxes, linking to glossary terms using {{Birdgloss}}, linking calls from the Commons and at Xeno-Canto using {{Birdsong}}, etc. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abies balsamica: P.S. There's related material at hybridisation in gulls#Hybrid large white-headed gulls. The entry there for the olympic gull both has a citation needed tag for part of its content, and an existing citation, for another part. Maybe you can use that cite, and, once you're done with your draft, take care of the citation needed – assuming the detail there is sourced in your draft. There's also a cited entry in the second paragraph of bird hybrid.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah. Olympic gull currently redirects there, so (if my draft is accepted) I can clean that up and link it. Abies balsamica (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

trying to get an article approved....

Hi folks,

I submitted an article through the creation process and it was rejected. One of the issues was that the sources were not reliable though most of the sources are top-tier media outlets. Do you recommend the live chat for specific questions? Or is there a better way to get some feedback. The editor also said the wording was too promotional. Suggestions are welcomed. Lesscynical (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lesscynical: (Courtesy link: Draft:Aurora Innovation) Watch this space. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 00:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Lesscynical, and welcome to the Teahouse. At a glance, I'm a bit puzzled myself regarding the draft's use of reliable sources. However, Praxidicae, who reviewed your draft, is a highly experienced editor and article creator, so I'd imagine there's a good reason I'm simply missing from skimming over the draft. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Standing by.Lesscynical (talk) 00:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

In regards to your sources:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-19/aurora-enters-partnership-with-paccar-for-driverless-trucks is walled, but based on the title this is routine coverage and thus useless for notability (Examples of trivial coverage [includes] standard notices[...]and routine coverage, such as[...]expansions, mergers, acquisitions, sale, or closure of the business)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2019/10/29/aurora-ceo-chris-urmson-says-therell-be-hundreds-of-self-driving-cars-on-the-road-in-five-years/ doesn't discuss Aurora in any depth and is largely what its CEO says in any case.
Crunchbase is not an acceptable source under any circumstance.
https://venturebeat.com/2021/01/19/aurora-partners-with-paccar-to-develop-driverless-trucks/ is routine coverage (See above)
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/23/fresh-off-a-530m-round-aurora-acquires-lidar-startup-blackmore/ is routine coverage (See above)
https://www.autonews.com/mobility-report/aurora-prizes-independence-av-world is more routine coverage (see above)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-07/uber-sells-self-driving-unit-to-aurora-takes-stake-in-startup is also walled but based upon the article title this is more routine coverage (See above)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/technology/uber-self-driving-car-project.html is yet more routine coverage (See above)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2021/02/09/toyota-denso-partner-with-aurora-on-robotaxi-tech/ is yet more routine coverage (See above)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/paccar-aurora-to-develop-self-driving-big-rigs-11611090000 Yet Another #*%$@!@ Piece of Routine Coverage (YAFPoRC) (See above)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-30/driverless-tech-startup-aurora-adds-volvo-to-trucking-partners is walled but based on the title it's YAFPoRC (See above)
https://www.axios.com/googles-former-self-driving-car-guru-raises-cash-for-his-own-startup-1513301386-10cb3b49-2f73-4245-a8f3-89ffea0c58a9.html is YAFPoRC ([...]capital transaction[s], such as raised capital)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2018/02/28/aurora-on-the-rise-robocar-startup-snags-90-million-adds-reid-hoffman-mike-volpi-to-board/ is YAFPoRC (see directly above)
https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/07/amazon-sequoia-invest-in-self-driving-car-startup-aurora/ is YAFPoRC (See the Axios source above)
https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/12/hyundai-takes-minority-stake-in-self-driving-car-startup-aurora/ is YAFPoRC (See Axios source above)

That's not to say all your sources are bad - you have five good sources that aren't routine coverage that discuss Aurora in some depth. But as a general rule, a draft where the overwhelming bulk of the sources are unusable for notability and are of little use otherwise is a draft that gets declined. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Any suggestions on where one goes from here? (by the way, not sure what the value of the "f" word stuff is. Your point was well made without it.) Lesscynical (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano: I recognize that the Teahouse isn't the place for debating policy interpretation (and that any further ramblings of mine are better off at Draft talk:Aurora Innovation), but as you made this analysis, the reason why I stated I was puzzled above is that I believe very little of the coverage provided by Lesscynical actually falls under WP:ROUTINE. This is an interesting policy, insofar as the page actually cites an outside source for how a 'Routine Event' should be defined, which can be found here from pages 200–207. As best I can tell, articles like this one from Bloomberg aren't routine as defined by that article (or by our own short blurb on the policy page). I believe these sources perfectly adequately demonstrate the subject's notability. However, I'll defer to Praxidicae on the matter of reliability. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A volunteer editor doing the favor of looking at all of your references can become frustrated when ref after ref after ref contributes not to notability. Hence, I am guessing the #... Anyway, remove all the routine coverage refs and all of the content that rested on those refs. You may have a stripped down draft that will be accepted. P.S. The draft was Declined, not Rejected, which is worse. David notMD (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

TheTechnician27 and Jéské Couriano, now I'm adequately confused. I appreciate the feedback but are articles in Bloomberg such as those mentioned routine or not? Lesscynical (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It isn't entirely about the outlet. The content of the source also matters. It's possible for one Bloomberg article to be acceptable and another not for any number of reasons (and for the record, I treat reports of partnerships with other companies as routine coverage, more specifically expansion of the business). Likewise for any number of other reliable outlets. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 01:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Point taken. I'm going to work on the article based on this feedback. Thank you both for your time. Lesscynical (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

For what it is worth, if I did not explicitly call out a source cited in your draft above, then it's a usable source. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 02:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Jeska Couriano. Do you recommend I seek further feedback from the editor who did the initial review? Or soldier on based on what you provided? Thanks again. Lesscynical (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

At this point I don't think notability is an issue, with the five good sources you do have. All the same, it wouldn't hurt to ask for further feedback from the reviewer, but I don't feel that it's, strictly speaking, necessary. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 17:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft deletion

How can I request a deletion of a Draft? LooneyTraceYT (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello @LooneyTraceYT: Wikipedia has a series of tags you can add to articles to request deletion, they are listed at WP:CSD. In this case, {{db-author}} looks like the one most applicable for you. Just add that to the top of the page, and an admin will be along presently to take care of it. --Jayron 32 18:09, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How to actually submit a pushpin map

Hi, I am currently making an article about a village in Mato Grosso (Brazil) and i was surprised that there was no template map for it, so I went to Locationmap+ site on wikipedia help and it successfully explained how to create it but it didn't actually supply a button or place to submit them, or I just missed something :) LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

LongWinterBranches158, hello, friend! I'm a little confused. Once you create this map, you can just place it in the article in question. You have no need to submit it or anything like that. If that doesn't answer your question, try explaining it in a different way. Have a great day! Thanks, EDG 543 ^{(message me)} 19:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ooh so you create it in the article? Wouldn’t that be quite complicated to do?

I think you were already on the right lines, LongWinterBranches158, in that you realised that the easiest way to do this is with the pushpin map feature. The documentation is at Template:Infobox_settlement#Maps,_coordinates and there is a linked example at Padang to show how it works. That example is a bit complicated as the settlement template contains much else as well, so perhaps you should take a look a the source code for Tengenenge instead, where the pushpin map is more obvious. It's near the top of the page in the editor, starting {{Infobox settlement | name= Tengenenge

and going on to the key bits, namely

| pushpin_map = Zimbabwe | pushpin_map_caption = Tengenenge in Zimbabwe | coordinates = {{coord|16|43|51|S|30|56|39|E|region:ZW|display=inline,title}}

You could copy this into the article you are drafting, swapping the relevant details. If you run into difficulties, ping me back here with the link to your draft and I'll try to help. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

After writing this I looked at your recent contributions, one of which was Cachoeirinha, Mato Grosso, which seems to confirm you have worked out how to do the mapping! Well done for creating these articles. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I knew how to do that already, but I mean actually creating new templates, not used on articles before. How do I submit a pushpin map after creating it and not using another one to this list? I'm considering using a snipping tool on the Brazil map and cropping it into Mato Grosso (Mato Grosso's map doesn't work) and now that I'm not interested in Mato Grosso's mapping, I'd like one for Shaanxi (a huge Chinese) province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: In your recent Teahouse question regarding the Mato Grosso map, I recommended that you ask for help at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop if you wanted someone to create a module that would allow you to use a pushpin map of the state in articles' infoboxes. We have a blank map of Shaanxi province that can be used to create such a module. Just go to the Graphics Lab page linked above, and request that someone use that blank map to create Module:Location map/data/China Shaanxi. Once that is created, you can just enter "China Shaanxi" in the |pushpin_map= field of {{infobox settlement}} in an article about a place in that province, and a pushpin map will appear in the article. Deor (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Colour question

Next discussion : #A question about tables

How do you like decide what colours and how to word like the table on The Voice US, The Voice Australia, The Voice UK, The Voice Kids UK. E.g you use first names e.g Delta (The Voice Australia) Superman011 Superman011 (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(created section title for this question) David notMD (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Superman011, welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know of any site-wide guidelines about what colours to use for tables, though there may be some. Hopefully editors try at least to be consistent between articles on the same broad topic. You give a good example of that. If you're really interested and want to know why the people editing those particular articles made the choices they did, you might try asking on the talk pages for those articles. All the best, › Mortee _talk 21:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I like consistently.

I need help creating a Wiki page

Hello Wikipedians,

I created a page about a company called Revcontent, its a very popular advertising business with millions of searches per month (I invite you to see the searches by country on Google Trends:Here)

I found articles about this company on very large news websites like Forbes and Techcrunch

Despite all these references the page was not accepted > Draft:Revcontent

I think I missed something, I would like to know your opinion about the sources and this company because I also found a wiki page about them which was deleted (Published Page)

Thanks in advance Squirrelnet (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Squirrelnet: In order:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2016/03/09/how-revcontent-grew-into-a-content-innovation-powerhouse/ is from a Forbes Contributor, making it a glorified opinion piece and thus useless for notability (See WP:FORBESCON).
https://techcrunch.com/2017/02/23/revcontent-acquires-rover/ is routine news coverage (Standard notices [and] routine coverage [including, but nor limited to] the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business [are not considered significant coverage].
https://www.martechcube.com/content-marketing-platform-revcontent-partners-nba-nfl-analysis/ is more routine news coverage and even if it were not it's a press release and thus primary.
https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/HJ117jvPXu is a name-drop that doesn't discuss Revcontent in any real depth.
https://digiday.com/sponsored/in-the-race-to-shore-up-revenue-publishers-are-overlooking-deal-terms/ is native advertising and disclosed as such.

In summary, all your sources are useless. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 03:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I understand and I will delete the page... Thks

Jéské Couriano I don't think this tone ("in summary, all your sources are useless") is at all appropriate for the Teahouse. I also don't think that your signature, which reads "A little blue Bori", is appropriate for someone whose username is so different. Please see WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username › Mortee _talk 21:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you expect me to sugarcoat it? I'm not going to bloviate when someone brings up a draft whose sources are not up to par, especially if I am assessing them in the manner I am doing here. Being anything other than blunt results in them ignoring or misinterpreting you, and I would rather be unambiguous. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Takes a strong man to deny...} 21:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I do. New users deserve to be treated gently and to be offered constructive help, not just torn to pieces. That's exactly what the Teahouse exists to ensure. Rather than blow up this particular Teahouse section I'm posting the same message to your talk page. › Mortee _talk 22:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How to add a picture on an existing bibliography

Kairo owethu (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

You asked this question on 1 April and were answered. Below is the relevant content from that ask.

If the picture isn't yet at Wikipedia Commons, then see Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, and the pages that follow. If it is already there, then jump ahead to Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/3. -- Hoary (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
To complement what Hoary says, Kairo owethu: if the picture is already in Wikimedia Commons, then it is straightforward. If it isn't, then it needs to be uploaded. If it is a picture you took yourself, you can probably do that; if it is not, then it is likely that it cannot be used in Wikipedia. See the links Hoary provided for the details. --ColinFine (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi Kairo owethu. It's hard to give you a very specific answer without knowing more details, but you can find out some more information in Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Images. Basically what you need to do depends on whether the image you want to add has already been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons. If it has, then how it can be used depends upon the type of copyright license it has. So, if you want to use an image of this type, it will be easier for a Teahouse host to help you if you can provide the file name of the image and the name of the Wikipedia page you want to add it to. If, however, the image you want to use doesn't exist (i.e. hasn't yet been uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons), then things are more complicated and whether it can be uploaded depends upon its copyright status. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Were the replies not sufficient? David notMD (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I've slightly tweaked the formatting of your post so that it doesn't seem as if Hoary, ColinFine and myself are responding to this new thread. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)}}

Hi Kairo owethu. As David not MD posted above, you did ask this same question a few days ago. Teahouse threads which receive answers tend to be archived after a few days if there are no further posts made; so, maybe you didn't realize your questions had already received some responses and just didn't know where to look. For reference, you can find your previous questions at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1103#How to add pictures on a person's bibliography and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1103#How to add a picture on an existing bibliography. It's generally not a good idea to keep asking the same question over and over again, particularly a question that has already be answered. However, if there's something you don't understand about the responses you received, then please clarify what that is and a Teahouse host will try and help you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Boxes with pictures

how do you use boxes with pictures please tell me Wikismarty12359 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Wikismarty12359. I've added a header so that your question doesn't get absorbed into the one above. I'm afraid your question is not clear enough to answer. Do you mean you want to put a frame round an image? or use an image in an infobox? or something else? --ColinFine (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

it’s like a user box but how do i have a picture inside? Wikismarty12359 (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikismarty12359. If it's like a user box, then maybe you'll find the answer in WP:USERBOX. If you don't find what you're looking for there, then perhaps you can help the Teahouse hosts out by (1) providing a link to the image you want to add, (2) providing a link to the page where you want to add the image and (3) adding the syntax you want to use to add to that page to your user sandbox. Providing (1) and (2) will help a Teahouse host assess whether the image you want to add can or should be added to the page you want to add it to and doing (3) will allow a Teahouse host to try and figure out if there's a problem with the way you're trying to add the image (e.g. a syntax error). -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I improve my edit?

I run a dog blog and have made several edits regarding dog health. The edits were to expand on the topic and add more information regarding treatment/symptoms/causes of various dog issues. I was moderated and marked as spam, is it because my blog has affiliate links at the bottom of the page, products that can be used to solve certain pain points for dog owners? My pages are not advertisements but are informational. WorkNwrite (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

As answered on your Talk page, your blog - dogleashpro - is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used as a reference. Hence, correctly identified as spam, because it is seen as an attempt to promote you via your blog. If the information can be supported by a reliable source reference in no way connected to you that would be OK. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome, WorkNwrite. Given the nature of the topic here, the most suitable sources are likely to be peer-reviewed articles in scholarly veterinary journals, rather than blog posts. The only case where I can think a blog post would be acceptable as a source about this topic would be if it were written by a well-established and qualified expert, and the material it supported was uncontroversial. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Without wishing to pile on, editing Wikipedia to add references to your own publication rather misses the point of what Wikipedia is for, and other editors aren't likely to have much patience for it. I wish you the very best for your writing work, but please leave it to others to decide if and when to reference it in building the encyclopedia. › Mortee _talk 21:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(e/c) Hi WorkNwrite. You attempted to verify the information you added by citing to a blog, which, except for rare exceptions, is unacceptable as a source A second issue is that based on your disclosure, it appears this is your blog. You thus have a conflict of interest in citing to it at all (even, by the way, if it was an acceptable source for use). Additionally (though relatedly), despite your statement above, this has the appearance of advertising through self-promotion, which is something we see a great deal of here. However, now that you've been informed of the issue, if you don't continue to add these types of links, there's no problem. We are very forgiving of mistakes. The general cultural precepts are that edits that are inappropriate, for whatever reason, but not clearly made in bad faith, should be reverted (but should never be marked as vandalism, which we reserve for the clearly bad faith). After the user involved is clearly informed of the issue with their edits, repeating them converts the edits to bad faith and vandalism. I went through that explanation exercise because in my view your edits, while clearly inappropriate under our policies, were also clearly reverted in an inappropriate manner by the user who did so – using rollback, which is reserved for vandalism. That should not have happened. Sorry about that. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for helping me I really appreciate it!WorkNwrite (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Android app - how to log on

This is probably a record for the most stupid question on the Teahouse and I apologize - but it has me beat. Yesterday I used the Android app on my phone to make an edit for the first time in a while. I was surprised to notice that it had my IP rather than my user name, because I thought it would keep me logged on. But then I looked for where to log on, and I just can't find it anywhere. I checked every menu. I read all the help linked from WP:ANDROID. It talks about the importance of logging on, but nowhere does it say how to do that. The app does not have the same link that is on the PC, and my head is really starting to hurt. Can anybody please tell me (like you're explaining it to a child, or an old person) how to log on using the Android app? --Gronk Oz (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. Whilst I might not be able to help you directly (I mostly use iOS), could you please specify which particular app you have been using? This will help anyone who is able to check for you. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: It is the Wikipedia app from the Android Play Store. I'm not sure how to specify it any further. The link is play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.wikipedia 49.180.243.9 (talk) 00:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. btw, which version are using? i am using version 2.7.50350-r-2021-04-02. on my wp app, look at bottom of app. you will find explore, saved, search edit and more (along with logos). tap more (hamburger symbol or three small horizontal lines). tap login in/join wikipedia. thats it. Gi vi an (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an: the app does not show anything like that. At the bottom of the screen are options (and icons) for Save, Language, Find in article, Theme, and Contents. At the top of the screeen there is a drop-down menu (three dots) which gives the following options: Forward, Share link, View talk page, View edit history, New tab, and Explore. If there is a version number somewhere, I can't find it. But I apply all updates to all the apps on my phone every week, so it will be quite up-to-date. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. You could try this: (i) Bring up the article that you want to edit; (ii) click on the pencil icon; (iii) make your edit; (iv) click Next. You are now on the edit preview page. You should see some buttons where you tell it the reason for the edit ("Fixed typo", etc.). Immediately below that, there is a paragraph of text which includes a "log in" link. Click that link and you are on your way. (Note that I discovered this by trail-and-error, so don't take it as official; there might be a less convoluted method, but I have never found it.)

Mike Marchmont (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Marchmont: - wow, that worked! I'm pretty sure there must be a more straightforward way, but that worked! Thank you!

--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Gronk Oz. in your device settings, tap apps (in android 9), tap wikipedia _ it will show version number at bottom or in your app: settings - about wikipedia app shows version number. Gi vi an (talk) 03:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gi vi an: got it! The device settings shows WP version 2.7.50348-r-2021-03-19. As for the app settings - I cannot see any such option. I gave above the complete list of what is on every menu and I can't see Settings. Where is it? (I do wish I could just attach a screen shot - it would be a lot easier.) Gronk Oz (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How to start a draft on Wikipedia?

How to start a draft on Wikipedia? ItsJustdancefan (talk) 05:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: See Wikipedia:Article wizard/CreateDraft, which has a nice input box helping you. See WP:YFA for assistance and what we expect from articles.Victor Schmidt (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

COI with trade union

Hello. I want to confirm if writing on a trade union you belong to constitutes a COI. Thank you. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 05:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

TheSokks Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you just belong to the union, and aren't a union official, it's a conflict of interest, but not paid editing. 331dot (talk) 08:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@331dot: Thank you for your response. Ive created Draft:Nigerian Association of Resident Doctors and also looking to create Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Nigeria. Do I wait for the drafts to be accepted before declaring COI or just go ahead and do it now? The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheSokks: declaring it now would be best. Elli (talk | contribs) 08:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have declared the COI on my userpage kindly help review. Thank you. The Sokks💕 ^_(talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi Community, The user user:Nearlyevil665 is inappropriately flagging notable articles for deletion at a high speed. He sends email to the entity demanding for money to fix the articles back. Let’s check this asap.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.160.2.168 (talk)

That's a serious accusation that should probably be discussed at WP:ANI, not here. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment: This is beyond ridiculous and I assume is connected to my recent flagging of what I believe are non-notable Ghana-related articles, mostly non-notable musicians and performers, authored primarily by User:Geezygee, which mind you received a warning by another user on their talk page to cease creating articles directly into the mainspace. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: Agree with 331dot. If the anon is prepared to create an account in order to repeat this accusation, we can investigate. Failing that, his/her comments should be struck. I see no evidence of the activity being suggested here. In fact, my own experience is that it's not possible to nominate for deletion at high speed; if that was User:Nearlyevil665's intention, he'd be nominating for speedy deletion, not going to all the trouble of setting up a deletion discussion. Deb (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: For what it's worth, I did nominate a couple of Ghana-related articles for G11 deletion, but I'm not sure how that could be interpreted as malicious intent. Upon stumbling on a non-notable Ghana-related entry I filtered the author's contributions to page creations and found that an absolute majority were a complete mess. Namely there was a pattern of creating pages for non-notable Ghanaian musicians and performers. To be clear, I'm not suggesting the author of those pages is anyhow involved with this slanderous accusation against me. I'm just saying you can confirm the pattern of deletion tags as they were restricted to one particular user's page contributions. See Special:Contributions/Geezygee for more. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 08:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Comment: To add, the user Nearlyevil665 joined the community 8 months ago. Thanks 154.160.2.89 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions?

If find articles that have already been deleted, but make their way back onto Wikipedia with little to no changes... do I even need to nominate for AFD 2nd nomination or is WP:SPEEDY appropriate? For example, see Karl Fogel and Gabriel Farman. Just found both of those. What's the policy for stuff like that? Megtetg34 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Megtetg34 (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I stand corrected on the Gabriel Farman one. The Gabriel Farman article has actually been on here 3 times now and deleted twice. The first one was prodded, the 2nd one was voted delete on consensus, and now the latest one. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg34: If an article was deleted and recreated 8 years later, it might have been improved. Without seeing the original first deletion, there's no way to know. Every case is different - but based in the time gap between versions this one deserves another fair review. I voted delete. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The version deleted almost a decade ago was windier. Example: "While at Swarthmore College, Fairman studied under Frank & Gil Mustin Professor Kenneth Gergen and developed an unprecedented special major entitled 'The Death and Re-Birth of Human Agency' with a concentration in Interpretation Theory. Under this major sponsored by the Philosophy and Psychology Departments, Fairman studied how the human decision-making process is impaired by a lack of awareness of paradigms and cultural influences over our perceptions." -- Hoary (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

can i do videos

Im Deanike (Redacted) years old i have one question can i do videos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanike Bryan (talk • contribs) 10:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Deanike Bryan: It depends on what you want to make Videos for/about. If you want to make videos to enhance Wikipedia articles, maybe, depending on what the consensus on inclusion is. In all other cases, I recommend that you read the target site's terms of Use to see if you are allowed to upload Videos. Either way, you might be interested in Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Victor Schmidt (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

About Merzbow

I just listened to a Merzbow album for the first time... And holy god why does he have so many wikipedia pages for his albums? For reference, Merzbow is a japanese noise artist with a huge discography. But there are like a suprising amount of articles for him (see Template:Merzbow), ones that don't seem notable and able to be Af'd

To show my point, I'll pick a few articles:

Sadomasochismo only 1 source, which is discogs, not really a reference
Camouflage (Merzbow album) Only a primary source
Dead Leaves (album) discogs and a source used for a rating
Aodron It's just a single sentence, infobox, and tracklist
Kookaburra (album) Discogs, primary source

To quote wikipedia's album notability,

An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence.

Also, all of the above articles fail the general notability guideline anyways. I don't exactly want to sort through 200 Merzbow articles to request deletion, so I'm unsure what to do, so thats why I am asking here for help. Thanks so much. Mcguy15 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Masami Akita discography shows that many (!) of the albums are articles. And many (!) of those articles are stubs, or less. From View history, clearly there were a handful of fans of Masami who were creating these articles as far back as 2007. The question, then, is do you want to take a month to nominate all of them at AfD, including leaving messages on the Talk pages of the creators, and then manage the process? Which will place a huge burden on AfD Administrators? Or just look away? Keep in mind that these album articles have page views averaging about one viewer per day. David notMD (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I guess I shall go the hard way. (1,2,3 more to come)

Hello my name is Karl Magee I just want to let you know that the reason why i changed the date of the song release was Because it was incorrect.

81.107.113.113 (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The editor who reverted your edit was perhaps confused because you did not use an edit summary to point out that you were reverting apparent vandalism by 2601:2c0:4880:4e30:2956:7071:ad6d:52ae. It's always wise to use an edit summary to explain your edits. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Primary Topic - where to ask?

I would like the primary topic of a certain surname determined. Where can I do that? Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

DePlume: maybe Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Is_there_a_primary_topic? helps. I doubt that an article on a surname generally has a "primary topic". Is this about Soroko (surname)? Maproom (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I would like to be bold and ask about it anyways. Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Translation from other Wikis

Hello! I wanted to start by translating pages from spanish wiki in order to learn, instead of jumping to edit/creating pages. Wikipedia showed me a list of pages that needed translating but after my first two attempts I realized there are some articles on spanish wiki that don’t follow english wiki guidelines. ¿Any recommendations on how to analyze these articles that wikipedia is proposing for translation to see if translation will actualy be suitable? Pupypau (talk) 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I could give a long, complex answer; but simply, I'd advise you not to attempt this. (Lists of pages that need translations are, in my experience, near worthless. Somebody noticed that an article in Spanish or whatever looked substantial; this doesn't mean that it was/is good.) What I can recommend is that you look through articles here pertaining to the Spanish-speaking country/countries in which you're interested, and, for any that seem underdeveloped, look at the corresponding Spanish-language articles. If a Spanish-language article does seem better in some way, see for yourself whether/how that part of it is soundly based on reliable (and probably Spanish-language) sources. (I mean, actually view those sources and judge for yourself.) If some worthwhile part is indeed soundly based on solid sources, translate that part into English (of course together with its references) and add it to the existing English-language article. -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Pupypau. I recommend finding the Spanish Wikipedia's equivalent of our good and featured articles (respectively es:Wikipedia:Artículos buenos and es:Wikipedia:Artículos destacados) and trying to find candidates there that do not have corresponding articles here, or which are rudimentary here, and ripe for expansion. Even from that selection, though, before beginning, make sure the content is substantially referenced to reliable, secondary, independent sources .

To widen the pool, you might also look to articles that are candidates to be accorded good and featured status there (respectively es:Wikipedia:Selección de artículos buenos/nominaciones and es:Wikipedia:Candidatos a artículos destacados). Such nominated Spanish articles, of course, could still be quite poor (after all, sometimes people nominate poor articles here for good or featured status that have no chance of meeting those processes' standards), but certainly a much higher percentage of them will be well-developed and well-sourced articles than any random sampling from the Spanish Wikipedia. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

TS Lombard

My request for an article was rejected. Please help Hi, I created an article for TS Lombard and it was deleted due to not being notable enough. However, I have found more press articles which I believe makes it more notable and potentially article-worthy. How do you advise I go about creating the article again? Thanks in advance Hannahtsl (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hannahtsl, keep editing Draft:TS Lombard, and when you think it meets WP:NORG, submit it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The refs you added for Notable staff are worthless - mostly name-only mentions, not in support of the text. Given that staff and former staff are not the subjects of Wikipedia articles (Excpetion being JF), better to delete the section entirely. An info box could contain the name of the current CEO, but not members of the Board of Directors. David notMD (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

talk page link

Hi, I reinstated a page that was violated and redirected. Now the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabi is back online with its text, but its Talk page still links to its old redirected place. Does it just need time for the servers or do we need a manual edit somewhere? thanks Wikigetsme123 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Wikigetsme123: One of your edit summaries says "unapproved by the Kabi tribe". The subjects of articles do not get to determine its content. Please work with other editors to get consensus on if the page should be redirected or not. RudolfRed (talk) 03:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The articles Gubbi Gubbi people and Kabi are about the same subject, and ought to be merged. Maproom (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the feedback. The Kabi Kabi people and the Gubbi Gubbi people are not at all about the same subjects (unless you want to throw all Aborigines in one box) as the references we listed show. This is why those 2 articles about 2 tribes are not at all 'to be merged'. The maps show the region clearly as Kabi Kabi country, and even Noosa council refers to Kabi Kabi and not Gubbi Gubbi.

Please check our references on the Gubbi Gubbi Talk page or on the Kabi Talk page. Come up with references of your own and we discuss it, until then please leave the Kabi page written by Dianekmt as it is.

https://archive.org/details/tworepresentati00math/page/n71 https://www.visitnoosa.com.au/our-custodians Wikigetsme123 (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Requesting review/re-classing of for Balli Kaur Jaswal

Hi folks -- I've been working on de-stubbifying Balli Kaur Jaswal -- it is clearly past stub territory, but I'm always reluctant to re-classify articles I've been working on. I'd be grateful if someone would have a look and re-classify as appropriate. I would, of course, welcome any suggestions about improving it further. Thanks! Kenirwin/(talk) 02:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Kenirwin: Welcome to the Teahouse! I have removed |class=stub from the WikiProjects, so the article will appear as unassessed, and editors involved in those WikiProjects can assess the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: -- what an elegant solution; I hadn't thought of that. Thanks! -Kenirwin/(talk) 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hatnotes in templates

When adding a hatnote to a template, should it be directly at the template page, surrounded by <noinclude> tags, or at its /doc subpage? Template:No spam, for example, has hatnotes in both places. Kleinpecan (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kleinpecan. It looks confusing at top of the template page. I examined some examples in a search and they were all in the documentation. I don't know a guideline about it but that's what I would do. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Since you're an admin, could you please move the hatnote on that page to /doc? Kleinpecan (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Publishing issues

Hi, I tried several times to publish an article about a youth NGO I work with. At first the article was deleted because it was not sufficiently notable, so I included various sources (i.e., national newspapers). Now despite the changes it got deleted again because it "appears to read more like an advertisement". All the information I have is from official websites and seems written in a neutral way to me, I don't understand what else I can do t get the article published Sophiaraineri (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It's written in very promotional language. Articles must be written from a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Phrases such as "aims to be at the forefront, creating an inclusive & sustainable life, globally creating opportunities, sustainable positive impact, all over the world, the organisation has achieved notoriety, wide range of social initiatives, to raise awareness" all need to be removed or referenced to totally independent sources.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sophiaraineri. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sophiaraineri: As other editors have chimed in, the language used was promotional. Since you have a conflict of interest (and it's much appreciated that you designated that on your user page), such a task may be harder. A tip would be to not describe what the organisation aims to do, but what they have done without using words that prime a reader to feel a certain way. There are other guidelines and policies that will influence how the article is shaped, but neutrality is the most glaring issue right now. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding original images to wiki articles

How would citation/attribution work for original images made primarily for Wikipedia? I'm working on a set of images to explain several health conditions in dogs in a visual manner (think medical diagram) to cover some of the gaps found in the text. Thanks for your help! WorkNwrite (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC) WorkNwrite (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Assuming that the content of your images are entirely your own work (such as photographs you took or diagrams produced using a drawing package), you can upload them to Wikipedia Commons and the attribution lies there against your username. For diagrams, the favoured file type is .svg but .png also work. I'm a chemist and Commons has dozens of chemical diagrams I created as well as a few colour photos. Note that you have to be prepared to licence everything as CC BY-SA 4.0 (or similar) meaning anyone can modify or re-use your material, even for commercial gain. This link gives some more detail: Commons:Help:Contents. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! If parts of the image are sourced from an existing image (under CC) and compiled into a new image (under fair use/derivative work) do what is the best way to attribute the original owner? WorkNwrite (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello WorkNwrite. I think the answer above covers the copyright issue.

Maybe you had something else in mind though, about verifiability? Unfortunately Commons is not a really good place for citations and the like, but you can put your sources in the file description: created according to Jane Doe's "Mechanical maintenance of dogs", third edition, 1987, chapter "plumbing issues", pages 17-23. Once you put the images in a Wikipedia articles, you can add your sources there too. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@WorkNwrite: there's a relevant guideline addressing this at WP:OI. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How can I become an admin?

Hi, I want to say that how can I become an admin? EditJuice (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

EditJuice Welcome to Wikipedia. It's one of those "if you have to ask..." questions. I see you first registered only yesterday. It takes several thousand edits and a sustained track record of positive contributions to the project, not only in articles, also in the "back office" processes. So keep on contributing and ask again in a couple of years. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

EditJuice Hello there! In case you want some more information about becoming an administrator, just in general, for your own edification, the page Wikipedia:Administrators has a LOT of good information on the role of admins and on the process by which admins are made. There is also Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship. You can read those for your own information. However, I do want to echo what Roger said above; you are clearly not experienced enough to be a Wikipedia admin yet. Most admins have years of experience as an editor before being granted the mop. I myself was a registered user for 18 months before becoming an admin, and had edited anonymously for some time before that. Give it some time. --Jayron 32 17:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'll wait. EditJuice (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Vandal hunting

Hello again, Teahouse, I've yet another question. I've been spending a lot of time fighting vandalism lately, and I was just wondering if there is any specific time of day where vandalism occurs frequently. Or perhaps day of the week? HelenDegenerate (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, that's an interesting question. I don't think there's anything, but I've found Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Vandalism studies to be interesting reading. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 22:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer would be no. However a good way to think about it would be to think like a vandal. What would you do in their position if you were trying to vandalize a WIkipedia article without getting caught, and when would you do it? A Wild Wolf has appeared! | Gotta catch 'em all! (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, guys. Please help me with your knowledge. I cannot upload pictures it is showing that "something went wrong" .Please help me .

Mam KP (talk) 08:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I do notice that your user page shows a graphic file that is missing evidence of permission, that it was you who uploaded it, that you were informed of the copyright problem on 31 March, and that the same image appears here, a page at whose foot we read "All Right Reserved." Please do not upload any more files until you have fixed problems with those that you have already uploaded. -- Hoary (talk) 08:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

If the image obeys the rules for images, try clearing your cookies, that may be the issue. A Wild Wolf has appeared! | Gotta catch 'em all! (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Signature

So, I changed my signature for April Fools' and I don't remember what it was before I changed it. Is there any way I can revert it back or do I just have to find my signature from before then and use that? A Wild Wolf has appeared! | Gotta catch 'em all! (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You'll probably have to find your old signature (which seems to be "Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk)"). Kleinpecan (talk) 18:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one I"m looking for. Thanks! (kept my comment unsigned because i"m changing the signature right after I post it) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaze The Wolf (talk • contribs) 18:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

How to resolve the same page being created in Draft and Article spaces

Hello. I'm curious what the accepted way is to resolve the same page being created in Draft and Article spaces. Specifically, I created Draft:The Problem With Jon Stewart at 9:50, and The Problem with Jon Stewart was created at 9:55. I'd like attribution for the page creation, but I'm not sure how to go about resolving this. Thanks for your help. Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome @Rmaloney3: There's instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge, there are two ways: the simple way and the complex way. The simple way is to tag the target page with the {{histmerge}} template and wait for an admin to come around and take care of it. The more complex way is to create a request at the page I linked for you and also see if an admin comes around to fix it. I am an admin, but I personally haven't done many of these, and I will leave it up to another admin to help so I don't bodge things up. --Jayron 32 17:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a request on the linked page. I appreciate the help. Rmaloney3 (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rmaloney3. I see you've already had some guidance on this, in discussion of why the request was declined. As noted there, we (generally) do not do history merges unless the pages have a common origin for the actual content (as opposed to the situation here, where the pages have a common subject but different content and different histories for the development of that content). Let me just add that the chief problem here is the overlapping time frames.

As background, in the most common situation calling for a history merge, a user attempts to rename a page by manually copying the content to another title, rather than using the move function (i.e., a cut and paste move; see {{Uw-c&pmove}}). Before this can be easily reversed, there are subsequent edits at the new page, thereby foreclosing just deleting it and moving the origin title there as should have been done in the first place. The problem created is that the page history of one (which shows the copyright attribution of the edits, and where you can follow how those edits came about), has been divorced from its source.

Notwithstanding this, it's not really a big deal to do a history merge for unrelated-origin-pages if the histories are not extensive and do not overlap in time, such that anyone looking at the page history can follow back the versions without any confusion. Here though, were a history merge to be performed, it would create a big problem; multiple versions of the history would be "shuffled" – with edits to the differing content intertwined. If you looked at a diff for any such instance of shuffled content, for example, it would provide a false appearance that the editor involved made all these massive changes they did not (and would likely make their edit summary nonsensical). Hope this helps. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit was reverted?

Hi! I made an edit to the wikipedia page for August 16, and added rapper Young Thug. The edit was reverted, any idea why? DevShub (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit was reverted by User:Bruce1ee, who wrote: "new entries require an inline citation; see WP:DOYCITE". Kleinpecan (talk) 18:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@DevShub: I added it back with a source this time. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for an article to be edited

Hello! So I would like to improve the SnowRunner article, however I'm afraid I might have a conflict of interest or may not be able to improve it according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Is there a place where I could request for someone to take a look at the article and improve it in whatever way they feel it's right? Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: Your best bet is to declare your COI on the talk page (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#General COI), and then put in an edit request on the talk page, per Wikipedia:Simple conflict of interest edit request. This allows you to share specific info you have about what should be changed, but also allows other unconnected editors to ensure the info is properly sourced and not promotional. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure if I have a conflict of interest or not. BUt I will go ahead and do that. Thanks! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Customizing a signature

I spotted many People such as LTPHarry, Sammi Brie, and Mrschimpf having very cool customized signatures, and I want one like them but my Username In green because my favorite color is Green. So, how do I automatically set a customized signature as my Signature? LooneyTraceYT (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Go to Preferences -> scroll down until you see "Signature:" and then type in wiki markup for your signature. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 22:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LooneyTraceYT. Also mark "Treat the above as wiki markup" at Special:Preferences. Here is code to get you started:

[[User:LooneyTraceYT|<span style="color:green">LooneyTraceYT</span>]] ([[User talk:LooneyTraceYT|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]])

. It produces LooneyTraceYT (talk). PrimeHunter (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

More efficient would be [[User:LooneyTraceYT|LooneyTraceYT]] ([[User talk:LooneyTraceYT|talk]]) which produces the same thing. If you're looking for something cooler, knowing CSS helps with things like that. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 23:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your code produces: LooneyTraceYT (talk). I don't know how it renders for you but in proper browsers the color is overridden by Wikipedia's normal link color unless the color is defined inside the link. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry,

Facepalm MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 19:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this draft have problems?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Prende_TV ItsJustdancefan (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Yes, it does. The first paragraph has a promotional tone, not encyclopedic. Most (if not all) of the references don't seem to provide independent coverage of the service. The first paragraph states it launched on March 31, while the second paragraph indicates it "is set to launch in the first quarter of 2021", and then says it launched on March 30 - which is it? There are also issues with grammar, capitalization, incomplete sentence, and spacing. Hope this helps! GoingBatty (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: Also, although the draft claims that "Wikimedia Commons has media related to Prende TV", there doesn't seem to be any media in Commons. GoingBatty (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsJustdancefan, your draft is written like an advertisement. At Wikipedia we aim for a neutral point of view. For more help, read Wikipedia:Your first article. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 19:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi ItsJustdancefan. You committed copyright infringement and engaged in plagiarism in writing the draft. Don't ever do that again, anywhere on Wikipedia.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Why are there so little articles about Chinese settlements?

In the last two days, I have created around 7 articles about Chinese towns, townships and villages, and if you take a look at ‘list of township-level divisions in (literally any Chinese province)’ about 90% of these divisions are ladies in red (red links), and sometimes not even red links, just completely missed out. I did a bit of research and I found one possible answer, I think it’s because most towns and townships don’t have many unique or interesting facts from reliable sources in ENGLISH. Only about 3 pages on Google in English but when I search it again in Chinese, there is so much information about the division on Chinese websites (We can view Chinese websites through Google but they can’t view ours) to the point where a full article with headers and everything could be made. Why is China specifically so unfinished on Wikipedia when we have so much information about it? I might put one of those badges promoting more articles in China on my user page.

I’m also mentioning that a bot created most polish villages, like check 5 random small rural village articles on Wikipedia and they’ll all be in the same format, expressing the distance from their provincial capital and everything. Can’t we create a bot for China since it’s so unfinished? LongWinterBranches158 (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

PS. on the polish village thing, it was to the point where it was hard to not find an article on villages when roaming around different parts of poland in google maps. take these 5 for example, same format and everything, with the occasional fact added by a human. Skowronów, Narty, Łódź Voivodeship, Chlewska Wola, Prynowo, Wolica, Lubartów County — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi LongWinterBranches158, what you want is Wikipedia:Bot requests. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 19:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be on the frequently denied bot list for a stub maker (all a bot can do is check Google Maps and a few consistent sources to add information)? Like how was the Poland bot not denied? It makes lots of stubs.

I'd say your average bot china article would look a little something like this — Preceding unsigned comment added by LongWinterBranches158 (talk • contribs) 19:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I have no clue whether it would be denied or approved. All I'm doing is directing you to the right page for this. The Teahouse is the wrong place for this. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 19:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@LongWinterBranches158: Lots of third World countries have poor coverage in Wikipedia. In China's case it's a big factor that Wikipedia is blocked by Chinese censorship so we miss a lot of potential editors. List of countries by English-speaking population says 10 million speak it and 300 million are "learners". The Polish villages were created in 2008–09 where it was easier to get a bot approved for article creation. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Article status

Hi,

How do I find out about a status on my article.

Thank you Solome2020 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

It is awaiting review. Please be patient, the review queue is quite long. AdmiralEek (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Solome2020 Literally, it is not a queue, as reviewers select from the drafts whatever they want to review next. However, in general, reviewers work to not letting drafts get tooooo old. David notMD (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

A question about tables

Previous discussion : #Colour question

So how do you decide when to use style="background: #DFD; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-cast"|Main, style="background: #DEF; color:black; vertical-align: middle; text-align: center; " class="table-cast"|Guest etc in a judges table? Superman011 (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you be more clear? MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 19:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This is in reference to an earlier question about coloring boxes in tables on various The Voice articles. David notMD (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigations

Hi, how would I open a sockpuppet investigation? I have pretty clear evidence, but I'm not sure how to do it. Thanks! xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I looked and there is already an open SPI against them. xRENEGADEx ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Double-click and stay

I changed my preferences to double-click on a page to start editing. I did this in the hopes that I could start editing at the place that I double-clicked at. But, I'm always get sent to the top of the article.

Is there any way to stop this movement and edit the way I want? It gets tiresome writing down every point that I want to edit and then trying to find that point again. I'm always editing on my desktop, so it's not on my phone or anything. Pibal373 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pibal373: Welcome to the Teahouse. Why not click the edit links by the section headings? It'll get you closer to where you want to be. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pibal373: I'm afraid Tenryuu is right. Double-clicking always opens the editor at the top of the page, though you can choose to edit just one individual section with the WP:Source editor, though be aware that if a citation has been used in another section, and then re-used in the section you're editing, you won't fully see all the references and may get a warning message, which you can ignore. If you choose to edit with WP:VISUALEDITOR, once that tool is open, you can click on a particular point and start editing there. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice everyone. I was hoping I could "freeze frame" :) But, to start at the section heading looks like the way to go.--Pibal373 (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with cite news template

Hi! I am struggling with the cite news template in an expansion I'm drafting in my sandbox: User:Silence of Järvenpää/Kullervo. As one can see, I'm getting red error output. Would someone be able to assist me? Thanks! Silence of Järvenpää (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Silence of Järvenpää: you have |archive-url= which is meant for a link to an web archive, not to a website. If the source is online, do |url=https://path/to/source instead. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Templates

I have frequently seen templates such as "citation needed" in articles. How do you insert such a citation? I have found plenty of information about when to do it and when not to do it. but nothing about how to do it. Is it something an ordinary editor can do? Also if I find a source and insert a citation into the article how do I remove the template? Spinney Hill (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spinney Hill: yes, you can insert citations. Wikipedia:Citing sources is kinda lengthy but explains it. After you add the source, you can just delete the "citation needed" tag. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Spinney Hill: Click edit on any page that has a template and you can see the source code where the double brackets are at the top. It’s as simple as that. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Help:Referencing for beginners is a guide on how to create references. David notMD (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Spinney Hill: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're using the source editor, just type {{citation needed|date=April 2021}}. If you're using the VisualEditor, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Editing templates. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Spinney Hill. You use VisualEditor and many instructions are only written for the source editor. Most experienced editors use the source editor so I'm afraid the above answers aren't very helpful. If you click "Citation needed" in VisualEditor then there should be an "Add a citation" button. If you use it then "citation needed" should automatically be removed. See Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide#Adding a new reference for how to add a reference when there is no "citation needed". If it doesn't work to click "citation needed" then please say where you click it on which page. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I think I got the first question wrong. I can insert citations. How can I insert "citation needed"? Ah I think I have it now Spinney Hill (talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Does revision deletion apply here?

I have once seen a nonsensical allegation on Wikipedia that states that a famous person is another's father when their age is near the same. Should I invoke Revision Deletion? If yes, under which criteria? Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DePlume. You can't "invoke" a revision deletion, but you can request that an administrator or oversighter look at the content in question and assess it. Follow the guidance given in WP:REVDELREQUEST and let an administrator/oversighter sort things out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your concern and for a very sensible question. As usual, Marchjuly gives well-grounded advice. Notwithstanding that I don't know the specifics, I really don't feel that the scenario you describe even closely meets the criteria for redaction (see WP:CRD). If someone were to describe me here as the lovechild of Ronald Reagan, I would simply expect that edit to be reverted as unsubstantiated. It's not grossly offensive to me - just laughable. Uncited edits about living people simply need to be reverted, not revdel-ed. And I say that as someone who is happy to revdel offensive comments, whether in edits or just in edit summaries. But it always comes down to the details. If in doubt - and especially if it relates to details about, or published by, a minor - please contact one or more active administrators willing to make revision deletions. It's best to do this offline. See Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests. Before I got the admin tools, I found it hard to know who to contact, so I would work through that list and check each editor's contributions to see who might still be awake and active at that moment. But the scenario you describe does not sound like there is any urgency for action at all. I hope this helps. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation

Can anyone look at and review/decline Articles for Creation submissions or is there a process to be allowed to do this. I would like to help look at articles and reject articles that clearly are not fit for wikipedia. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: There's a process - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation. GoingBatty (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Once there, go to Participants for criteria. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: while you'd need to be a reviewer to decline articles, anyone can move AfC articles out of draftspace if they're clearly acceptable, or nominate them for speedy deletion if they're clearly not (such as if they are a blatant copyvio or attack page). Elli (talk | contribs) 23:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

My editing was deleted

Hi I made some changes to the entry on Camille Paglia, clarifying her political views. The changes were under the 'politics' subheading. I quoted from an interview she did and provided a reference link to a youtube interview clip (approx two minutes long) where she stated the exact words I quoted. I then clarified what changes I had made and why the changes were necessary in the summary. Within minutes, the changes had been removed.

Could you let me know why this happened and what I did wrong please?

Many thanks VeMangoTree (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@VeMangoTree: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at the revision history for the Camille Paglia article, you can see that your edit was reverted because a bot identified it as possible vandalism. Since your edit was obviously not vandalism, you can use the link in the revision history to report the false positive. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@VeMangoTree I may be wrong but Youtube links are not reliable with a few exceptions. As for the interview those are not generally reliable as they are from the articles subject themshelves so it would be similiar to an autobiography. We have no way of verifying what that person says. That's why. You may wish to speak to a more experienced editor for additional clarification. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gandalf the Groovy: WP:ABOUTSELF is the relevant policy here. Generally a politician's claims of their positions could be used, unless reliable sources disagree (however, they could be undue weight). Elli (talk | contribs) 21:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli Thanks! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hoping to resolve article issues

Hello all.

I am quite new to Wikipedia so want to make sure that I understand the rules and preferred approaches etc. For full disclosure, the reason I have come on here is twofold. One because I am a family friend of two notable brothers (Kim Nasmyth and Luke Hughes (furniture designer)) who have pages written about them. They had noticed some missing (and quite relevant) information as well as some notices that were innacurate and unfairly reflected badly upon one of them. Secondly, because of this, I thought there may be many other pages where this is happening so thought I would do what I could to ensure truth and fairness prevails by assisting wherever I could.

My recent realisation is that Wikipedia may see anything that I add to these particular pages as a 'conflict of interest', so have been very careful only to add properly-referenced facts without any 'puffery' (as I believe is the term used). I just wanted to ensure that either myself or the Wikipedia community at large could do what was required to ensure the 'This article has multiple issues' box was removed from the Luke Hughes (furniture designer) page - as I do not believe the issues highlighted in this box are true nor accurate. To me the page seems well-referenced and quite transparent, but due to my relationship with the subject it is not my call to remove the 'multiple issues' box.

Please do let me know if I can be of neutral service elsewhere. I have always been a great admirer of the concept of Wikipedia so would be more than happy to lend a hand where required with other pages.

Gentleman18 (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Gentleman18 The place to declare a conflict of interest is on your User page (see WP:COI). Given COI, the proper path for you is to go to the Talk pages of the articles in question and make requests for article changes there. Be specific, and provide references. There is a means to then submit an edit request. A non-involved editor will review your propsed changes and act. Separately, if you and an editor are reverting each other, STOP. That is called edit warring, and can lead to a temporary block. Take the dispute to the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

David notM Thank you for your guidance and advice. Much appreciated. Gentleman18 (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Can a Move Request be placed on hold?

If yes, how? Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: what do you mean? Elli (talk | contribs) 00:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

As in suspending such a request for later resumption. Thanks and don't bite me, DePlume (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@DePlume: not really... Elli (talk | contribs) 00:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hi DePlume. I'm not sure what you mean by "place on hold". If you're referring to a proposed move request that's currently being discussed on some article talk page, then it would be perfectly OK for you to participate in such a discussion and explain your reasons for wanting the move to be delayed or postponed as explained in WP:RMCOMMENT. If you're referring to a move that's already been completed, then you can perhaps find some ideas on how to handle such a situation in WP:RMUM and WP:MR. Finally, and this is just a personal observation, you might not want to add don't bite me to every post you make. Most experienced editors are familiar with WP:BITE and it can be explained to those who aren't if and when they do WP:BITE you. Adding it to every post you make seems unnecessary and may actually be counterproductive per WP:CITEBITE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit the section of the lead section?

Is there a way to display and edit only the first part?--SilverMatsu (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: There is. If you go to your preferences and navigate to the Gadgets tab, go to the Appearance section and check the first option, "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi SilverMatsu. Yes, actually a variety of ways. You can change your preferences, per above, but a direct method is to click on a side edit link, then change the very end of the resulting URL in your browser's address bar from section=1 (or 2 or 3, etc.) to section=0 (and then clicking return/enter). However, are you aware though that you can click on the edit link at the top of a page, rather than any side link, to edit the entire page, including the first section? Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu and Fuhghettaboutit: Thank you very much:) --SilverMatsu (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried immediately. It is very good.--SilverMatsu (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this article need a reference?

Does this article need a reference? KGBT-FM SparklesonApple (talk) 02:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@SparklesonApple: yes, references to reliable sources should be added. Feel free to help! Elli (talk | contribs) 03:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it possible to edit a person’s age?

I have noticed that the age for Caitlin Collins, CNN reporter, is listed incorrectly, despite her date of birth being correct. She turned 29 today, but is shown as being 28.

How can this mistake be corrected? 2601:643:4300:4720:9CD8:2391:42F5:CC76 (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

courtesy link (note spelling): Kaitlan Collins

It should be OK now. In some situations, it takes Wikipedia a while to update its calculations (such as age). Making any edit to the page (even unrelated to the date of birth or age) should do it, as should doing something called purging the cache. Or, you could be lazy like me, and just wait for it to eventually update. Have fun! --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi IP 2601:643:4300:4720:9CD8:2391:42F5:CC76. The article you're asking about is Kaitlan Collins (Caitlin Collins is an article about a different person), and it currently shows her age as "29". Most of the times such information is added to articles via a template which automatically calculates a person's age based on their date of birth and the current date. My guess is that perhaps you looked at the article while it was still April 6 (i.e. while Collins was still 28) or maybe it just took some time for the information to be updated. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Was experiencing a similar issue on the page for Richard Thompson just now. It says his date of birth is 3 April 1949, but his age hadn't updated to 72. It's been a while since I last edited anything here, but I remember there were templates used for this sort of thing. Btw, when I logged in to mention this, and I reloaded that page again, the age did update to 72. Logged out, it's back to 71. Tamtation (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tamtation: probably your browser's cache? Elli (talk | contribs) 05:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: That's what I thought, but it doesn't seem to be what's causing this. Well, I am not going to lose any sleep over it. Tamtation (talk) 05:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Linking an English page to it's comparable non-English page

I was looking at the category page for French super-heroes and wanted to see what the equivalent French page said. However, in the sidebar there were no links to a French version. I assumed there wasn't one; however, there is. I would link them to one another, but can't figure out how to do this.

Thank you. Randlesc (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Randlesc: interwiki links are managed at Wikidata. The page I linked gives you some instructions on how to link up pages there. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! N1l3shSh1 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, N1l3shSh1, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added a header, to separate your posting from the previous section. Have you a question about editing Wikipedia?a --ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello! – Help with correction to page: The Stone Twins

Dear Teahouse, Thank you all for your great work!

I hope that someone can help with the editing of the page: The Stone Twins. The edit from 8 March 2021 contains false and misleading information. It is incorrect to state that The Stone Twins are “creating and promoting debunked COVID-19 misinformation”. This creative communication agency is simply questioning the fearmongering about COVID-19 and the proportionately of the measures/restrictions. The Stone Twins are strong believers in social criticism and the freedom of expression.

Please can someone correct this page by reverting to the version of 16 September 2020? As you can see in the ‘revision history’, I am having difficulties editing it. :(

Thanking you in anticipation. TheStoneTwins (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Change your username (We do not permit usernames that imply promotional or role status) and argue this on the talk page of the article. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

TheStoneTwins, just so you know, according to WP:NAMEGUIDE, each account represents one person, so you must create a separate account if there is more than one person using the account right now. Sungodtemple a tcg fan!!1 !11 !! (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear A little blue Bori + Sungodtemple thank you both for your help. I thought that transparency was the best approach in flagging this issue of possible vandalism - where a misleading and false statement about my company was added on 8 March 2021 by an anonymous source. However, I understand Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and greatly appreciate your advice.

New Draft For Emmanuel A. Baptiste

Hello, I created a new Draft for Emmanuel A. Baptiste. Can someone make sure all the format is correct, so it gets accepted soon?

Thank you! Allthewaytoheaven (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Seventy minutes after you wrote that, Tatupiplu declined Draft:Emmanuel A. Baptiste. As she says, the draft doesn't present evidence of notability, as the term is understood in Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

All of the refs are to his businesses. Needs refs about him written by people not connected to him. David notMD (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Deanike mohan Bare

Deanike mohan Bare (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Deanike mohan Bare, and welcome to the Teahouse. I've added a header, to separate your posting from the previous section. Have you a question about editing Wikipedia? --ColinFine (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Deanike mohan Bare, I'm not sure why you've copied the article Rainbow flag (LGBT) to your user page, but this is not a good idea. First, you user page is not for developing articles: it's a place where you may if you choose tell the Wikipedia community a little about yourself as a Wikipedia editor: see WP:User page for more information. Secondly, copying within Wikipedia is not encouraged, for various reasons - see that page for an explanation. If you want to make some change to Rainbow flag (LGBT), it would be much better to make small changes directly to the article; or (especially if you want to make a bigger change) to discuss what you want to do first on the talk page Talk:Rainbow flag (LGBT). --ColinFine (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some editors choose to copy sections of articles to their Sandbox, edit there, check to make sure everything is correct, then patch that back into the existing article. But not entire articles. David notMD (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note for future reference, Deanike mohan Bare, that you MUST provide copyright attribution when you copy content from one Wikipedia page to another. This is described at the page ColinFine linked above, Wikipedia:copying within Wikipedia. Though as noted, this content does not, in any event, belong at your userpage, I have repaired the copyright problem (see WP:RIA) by providing the missing attribution through the edit summary in this edit. Please be sure to provide copyright attribution for all future copying. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ariana Grande

FYI

– Heading added by Tenryuu.

So you know Ariana Grande is on replacing Nick Jonas so can she be on the timeline where all the finalists and who are the coaches and what colour is she going to be? Superman011 Superman011 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

...What? MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 14:43, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Superman011 Teahouse is not a place to ask questions about The Voice (or whichever Voice article it applies to). Ask at the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Can registered editors get blocked from editing? Superman011 (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If they misbehave, yes. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Fix Dead Links Tool

Is the external tool Fix Dead links down? When I click on the link I receive a "No Webservice" in my browser window.--Pibal373 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Pibal373 (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Pibal373. Please would you supply a url to the tool you are referring to?. Thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: The URL is https://iabot.toolforge.org/index. The link is located under View history >>>External tools of every article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pibal373 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pibal373 Yes, that tool has been down for a few days. It looks like one of the tool's owner's Cyberpower678 is aware there's an issue, but it's not a quick fix according to the messages on their talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Joseph2302 Thanks. Hopefully they get it fixed soon. It's a good tool.--Pibal373 (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion of Article.

Hi Wikipedians, I have recently cancelled the contract with the Commpany I had mentioned in my User Page. So, a few days back, I saw a video of Damon Frost and thought of creating a Wikipedia Page for him. Also, his son Maceo Frost is a notable person, and I am about to create an article about him.. But when I tried to create an article on Damon, I submitted it for review and it said that it was promoted to deletion. Please do let me know the reason for this.It was my first article, so please do let me know the mistake I made in this. Thanks!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Jocelin Andrea (talk) 02:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: The reason is given:

non-notable; fails GNG

Link added. You also created the article in articlespace, where it will be scrutinised a lot more than if it were in draftspace. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thanks for your help. So, I have dropped the idea about Damon Frost. Please do check the article in my draft space. That article is about his son, Maceo Frost. Kindly check if there are any errors to be changed and weather his references are good.Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Maceo_Frost is the link for the draft article. Please do check weather this article is ready to get published or there are errors in it, so that I can submit it for review. Thanks in advance!!! Jocelin Andrea (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: A reviewer knows what to look for compared to me, but I'd be wary of the external links as a reviewer could interpret the number of them to be promotional. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC) There are some spelling and capitalisation mistakes in the last para. Spinney Hill (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Jocelin Andrea: a hint about getting reviewed. There is no order in which drafts are reviewed: it depends on a reviewer seeing a draft and choosing to look at it. I'm not a reviewer, but when I look at a draft and see a list of citations which are bare URL's, it's certainly a turn off. The first step in evaluating sources is to look the title, publication and date, none of which are necessarily visible in the bare URL. Please look at WP:REFB. --ColinFine (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You claim the photograph as your own work, but at Commons you also wrote "This is the Picture of Maceo Frost, which I captured." This is clearly a copyright infringement. David notMD (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he was born in 1960 either. PrincessPersnickety (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jocelin Andrea: I am not a reviewer either, but there are too many claims in the draft that are unsourced, including some that have a source that doesn't support the claim. For instance, in the sentence "He won a young guns award[5] for best creative under 30 in 2017 one club for creativity." the reference at [5] is a listing of the films being shown at Santa Barbara International Film Festival 2019, which includes a film by Maceo Frost, but there is nothing about any award, or about anything else that's mentioned in the paragraph where you added the reference. References are there to verify the content in the Wikipedia article. --bonadea contributions talk 18:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes review

Hello, how can I review the pending changes on Punjab Wikiarticle? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 18:57, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To do this you must have reviewer right. People with this right are known as pending changes reviewers. Sysops can also review pending changes. If you are interested in becoming a reviewer, you can apply for the permission. Don't feel like you have to though as I accepted the pending changes. Feel free to reply if you have any further questions. bop34 • talk • contribs 19:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Minecraft: The Movie Question.

Do you mind if i make a official article of this draft (Draft:Minecraft: The Movie). There has been a lot of updates to the film recently and i think it should be noted for wikipedia. CodyGaming999 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CodyGaming999. I see no evidence that this long-delayed film is even in production yet. Am I missing something? Normally, we do not have an encyclopedia article about a movie until principal photography begins. Has that happened? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes. it has happened. but it took a very slow and painful process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodyGaming999 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If it has "happened" as you say, CodyGaming999, then provide a link to a published reliable source verifying that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can provide accurate and reliable sources go ahead. However as far as I know, there's no new news on it other than it might happen. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter says that the March, 2022 release date has been delayed indefinitely by Warner Brothers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding a topic:subject to Wikipedia

How can i provide the correct description for a new Wikipedia entry to ensure that it is correct? WikiSoCalBradley (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiSoCalBradley, by "new Wikipedia entry", are you referring to an article which exists, or to an article you wish to propose?--Quisqualis (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft article does not allow for saving and/or submitting for review

I have a Draft article at Draft:Sustainable_efficiency_in_water_systems, which was produced by an Editor in a previous review. It has the link "Submit the draft for review!" but does nothing. Also, in the Edit mode, I am hesitant to use the "Publish changes..." link, because I think it takes the article from the Draft space and publishes it as a real article.

How can I make changes to this draft article, save it, and when it is ready submit it for review?

Thank you for your help. Mitral8 (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Mitral8. Publish changes just means to update the draft. Click that button as often as you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not ready yet, as big sections of text with no references. David notMD (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Cullen328. Yes it worked, thank you. And David notMD, yes it is not ready. Needs much changes, it is my first article. Mitral8 (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing background

Hi, what things do you use to remove background of images?. Well if you know some things that remove backgrounds for images, please recommend me the best ones or send me links, of places where they could remove backgrounds. Thank you.Lady Orthodoxy (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Lady Orthodoxy, I’m so glad you asked. I happen to enjoy using software like this. Try remove.bg I hope this one helps. ;) HelenDegenerate (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

References

In an article draft I make reference to the fact that I was a Contributing Editor for a magazine back in the '70s for 2 years and name the magazine, but the magazines doesn't exist anymore, and the Internet didn't exist back then, so a reference link isn't possible. I do however have copies of the issues with my articles in them.

How should I handle this?

2603:6000:C600:A607:C0C0:EEF6:95EB:C0B0 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC) 2603:6000:C600:A607:C0C0:EEF6:95EB:C0B0 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello IP user. References do not have to be online. As long as the reference contains usual bibliographic information like title, date, publisher, and ISSN if it has one, that's fine: see Template:cite journal, (which is not obligatory, but is a handy way to present a citation to a magazine or journal).

However, your question throws up a couple of concerns. First, Wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary sources - if it is germane to the article that you were a contributing editor to this magazine, Wikipedia would much prefer that this fact was cited to a source unconnected with you or the magazine. Secondly, it's not clear what the relevance of this fact is to the draft article, but it suggests that it may be on a subject where you have a conflict of interest: please review that page and follow its guidance. --ColinFine (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse! {{cite magazine}} is appropriate when the publication you're referencing is not an academic journal. GoingBatty (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

hi

2604:4080:1018:89C1:B854:FD08:909A:2227 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there! Do you have a question about Wikipedia? GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How to prevent vandalism to a page?

I help manage the page of Christina Z. a comic book writer and there has a been constant harassment and vandalism on her facebook and instagram from an obsessed female fan. I've just deleted her bizarre vandalism but knowing how many stalkers will only continue until they are given attention, what is the best way to protect a page from people like this and to stop it as soon as it happens? DesignatedFillData (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@DesignatedFillData: assuming you're talking about this edit, the easiest way to go about it would be to request the page be protected at WP:RFP. versacespace leave a message! 20:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked that user from editing the Christina Z article for 6 months. If they make disruptive edits on other articles, I can implement a full block. Page protection isn't called for unless there's disruption that can be handled by blocks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@DesignatedFillData: Welcome to the Teahouse, and thanks for your efforts to stop vandalism. If you have any personal or professional relationship with Christina Z, then you probably have a conflict of interest that you should disclose on your user page. If so, then you may suggest improvements to the Christina Z article on its talk page, Talk:Christina Z, and use the {{request edit}} template to ask for assistance from another editor. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi DesignatedFillData. You've already received a number of replies, but I'm just going to add that Wikipedia articles don't have "page managers". If you preform such a role for Christina Z with respect to other websites either because you're in her employ or because you're just are a huge fan looking out for her, then you will need to realize that none of that matters when it comes to Wikipedia. If, by chance you do represent Christina Z in some way, please take a careful look at WP:COIADVICE, WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement and WP:BIOSELF because there are ways that you and Christina Z. can seek assistance from other editors. The content added by that IP needed to be WP:REVDELETED because it was clearly quite bad; if you come across something similar that clearly violates WP:BLP in the future, then follow WP:BLPREMOVE and then ask for administrator assistance per WP:REVDELREQUEST. Please understand though that simply removing content because it's negative or not to Christina Z's liking is not automatically OK per WP:LUC and may require further discussion. So, when in doubt, seek assistance at WP:BLPN or on the aricle's talk page. Please understand that there are many Wikipedia editors who will do all they can to help Christina Z if she has questions or concerns about the article as long as she's not requesting something that isn't in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Blatantly inaccurate picture on the magyarosaurus page

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

The picture in the description section depicts a "to scale" image of a magyarosaurus next to a human, but also says the magyarosaurus is 6 meters tall. I don't believe any humans are about 18 feet tall, so the image should be removed, but I don't know how to do that 153.90.64.241 (talk) 03:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The article says the length of the creature is 6 meters, not its height. RudolfRed (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Help with article creation

Courtesy link: Draft:John O'Neill (sociologist)

Hi there, I am looking to receive help with an article I am trying to create for a professor. It keeps getting declined for lack of neutral language. I am finding the Wikipedia interface a bit confusing as well. Is there where I can post a question to get 1:1 help? JohnDeeree33 (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@JohnDeeree33: Welcome to the Teahouse! If you're looking to chat with other Wikipedians, you can use IRC - see Wikipedia:IRC/wikipedia-en-help. If you know O'Neill or have been hired by O'Neill, you have a conflict of interest that you need to disclose on your user page. Also, the use of ibid is discouraged - see WP:IBID. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing question

WP:CANVAS states appropriate notifications of discussions include (emphasis mine):

On the user talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include:
Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article

Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)

Editors known for expertise in the field

Editors who have asked to be kept informed

.

How do I properly indicate I would like to be informed when particular subjects are discussed? I could put a notice on my user page, but the people most likely to be involved in these discussions generally wouldn't have a reason to go there. I could leave messages on the talk pages of those people, but that could come across as conspiratorial/vote-stacking if they agree with me on these topics, or ...kinda weird... if they hold opposing opinions. If someone who typically shares my view does know I wish to be informed and pings me, are they then obligated to also ping participants from "the other side"? Does this change if someone knows a lot of editors who agree with them and who have specifically asked to be informed (although, how is this different from Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement)...?), and also knows a lot of editors who disagree with them but is not sure they've explicitly requested notification? Also I've been here since 2007, so please assume general familiarity with WP policies. JoelleJay (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi JoelleJay. I think, but am not sure, that last bullet point is referring to editors who sign up to receive notifications via the Wikipedia:Feedback request service; I'm not sure it means you can do something on a per article basis, other than to simply add the article to your watchlist and literally "watch it" for any discussions that are started. -- 05:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

how to improve footnote {which?}, to fix weasel words

on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_Diamond

the sentence currently reads: "won numerous film festival awards,[which?]"

the answer is a list of 15 film festivals. should that be a footnote for each one? should that be one footnote with the text listing the specific list, and if so, does one need to include additional documentation? DocumentarianX (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, DocumentarianX. Obviously, some film festivals are more prestigious than others. I would not attempt to list all 15. Instead, I would select the three or four festivals that are most prestigious based on the Wikipedia articles about the festivals, and provide a reference for each that you choose to mention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

thanks, @Cullen328: and so, to be clear from what you just told me, one footnote per festival cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DocumentarianX (talk • contribs) 23:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@DocumentarianX: It doesn't matter whether you have one source for 4 festivals, or a different source for each festival. What matters is the quality of each source (e.g. independent and reliable sources). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

DocumentarianX, I agree with GoingBatty. One reference per festival is the most straightforward solution. But if you can find a reliable, independent source that discusses the film's performance at several film festivals, then that is even better, because it indicates that an independent journalist was taking a broader look at the impact of the documentary film. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Adding Articles That Don't Meet Notability Policies?

What's the procedure if you notice an editor/group of editors creating articles or stubs for encyclopedic inclusion that they, more likely than not, know that the topic is not notable enough for Wikipedia? Evidenced by putting sources in the article that are broken/dead/non-existent/trivial mention, etc. with no additional sources to verify topic notability. Megtetg34 (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg: nominating those articles for deletion should be a satisfactory response for now. versacespace leave a message! 20:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Would you provide links to some of those articles? Possible that Speedy deletion might be faster. David notMD (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD - Sure! And, I've mostly done as versacespace has suggested. For example though, here, here, and here, etc. Just continue nominating for AFD as find them then? Megtetg34 (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg: sounds good! it may be easier to check the users' article creations at special:contribs instead of looking for the articles. versacespace leave a message! 23:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

versacespace Thanks for that link! Megtetg34 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Checking editors' other article creations would take a LOT of work for your second example, as User:Edwardx has created more than 500 articles. David notMD (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

David notMD In what circumstance would it be 100% appropriate to bypass an AFD and just go straight to Speedy? Would any of the articles I provided links to, for example, have been candidates for speedy instead of AFD? Just trying to get a benchmark example moving forward. Megtetg34 (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Megtetg34: i don't believe so, maybe under criteria A7? versacespace leave a message! 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I had thought that Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people might apply, but the criteria for that requires that the article in question "contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc., reliable or otherwise) supporting any statements made about the person in the biography." I suppose the regular PROD could also be applied to BLPs that obviously do not achieve notability. David notMD (talk) 07:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Sky is NOT being cancelled.

Blue Sky Studios is actually back in business read this link. https://variety.com/2017/film/news/fox-blue-sky-studios-connecticut-2025-1202026529/ Spixmacaw101 (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Spixmacaw101: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to discuss this over at Talk:Blue Sky Studios. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Spixmacaw101That news item is over four years old.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

how to get false statement about yourself removed

how to get content removed or edited The entry for South Tucson was recently edited to include a statement about me and my business. I would prefer it be removed and if it can't to at least be edited to reflect accurate info. this is not an NFP. we support NFPs with our profits. When I tried to edit it, i was told that it couldn't be edited. what should i do?

The 1.2-square-mile city is gaining favor with businesses and residents and is attracting bohemians, artists, and musicians. This includes the relocation of the Real Things Artisans Co-op, a non-profit operated by noted artisan and educator Tommie Jayne Wasserberg. The city is trying to attract more business through a new economic development plan and an incentive program.[22] Local business owners and developers are eyeing properties in South Tucson as complementary projects to downtown Tucson with business parks, restaurants, retail shops, and multifamily investors moving into the city. Tommie Tooter (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tommie Tooter: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm not sure where you were told that the article couldn't be edited, as this is your only edit to Wikipedia (using this username). Per Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects, I suggest you post to the article's talk page, Talk:South Tucson, Arizona, and use the {{request edit}} template to get help from other editors. If you have any reliable sources to share to improve the article, please provide those as well. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the sentence. It had been added on 6 February without a reference. Mentions of individual businesses not warranted unless they qualify as Wikipedia articles on their own or are referenced. David notMD (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Waiting for submission / Where is my pending article now?

Hi folks,

I worked for a week on my first article (about Marianna Muntianu (don´t know who she is? Well, you won´t find her at wikipedia yet...) Whatever, I finally dared to ask for a review to convert the draft into a published text. The info popped up it would take about 4 months. Well... ok. BUT: Today I wanted to change sth. but can´t find the text anymore. I´m a bit nervous the work disappeared forever... Thanks, Uta UtaNabert (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@UtaNabert: it's actually right here. Do what you'd like with it. versacespace leave a message! 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

CAN take as long as months. The pile of drafts at AfC is not a queue. Reviewers select what they want to review next. So, could be days, weeks, or (sadly) months. You are welcome to continue to edit Draft:Marianna Muntianu while you wait. David notMD (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

UPDATE: @UtaNabert: Declined after some clean-up. Reviewer identified weaknesses. David notMD (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Question on Notability for Restaurant

Hi there! I'm a bit confused at the notability guidelines, so I'm asking it here. Recently, I've been doing a lot of research on a local pub/restaurant that's been around for a few hundred years, and I believe it could make a decent Wikipedia page! I was just wondering, however, would this be notable enough for Wikipedia?

Thanks in advance! Owen250708 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Owen250708. The test is simple but the devil's in the details.

See generally Help:Your first article. Then:

compile a list of reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail (think at least two to three paragraphs dedicated to the topic [one proviso – for a restaurant, that would have to be about its history, founding, background, etc. – matters on which an article could be based; not just different reviews of their food]), to see whether it is actually notable, as we use that concept here; the existence of those sources is what determines whether a topic is generally notability;
however, please be sure you unpack that standard, with its four mentioned parts, and thus look for the right types of sources and depth of treatment – you might find Wikipedia:Common sourcing mistakes (notability) of assistance with that;
if you can't make that list with at least three entries, with different content from one another, write nothing – no article is seemingly possible on the restaurant at this time, because it hasn't been the subject of sufficient independent publication by the wider world – and you will be wasting your time; no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability;
if you can, visit the Wikipedia:Article wizard and follow the prompts to create a draft;
write only what the sources you've compiled first verify (without copying the words used); and
cite those verifying sources as you write, which will also demonstrate the topic's notability.

Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

If the building has been around for several hundred years there is a good chance of it being listed, that will give you at least one good source, possibly several covering the building from an architectural point of view. If it is listed grade I that will usually be enough to meet the notability criteria without further worry. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Old Trip to Jerusalem, The [[Ye Olde Salutation Inn Salutation]] and the Bell (all in Nottingham) have articles with a spread of references and seem to me to be good examples of the kind of thing required. So does the Cheshire .Cheese off Fleet Street,London. The Bell at Long Hanborough and the Plumbers Arms,Belgravia are not so good. Spinney Hill (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm surprised that a building with 9th century elements is only grade II, even by English standards that is old for a building still in use. One of the great things about freedom of panorama is that we have a huge supply of photographs of the UK - I added a pic of the Bell and a reference. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

How do I review AfC submissions?

Hi there, Teahouse! Sorry if my English is bad. I would like to become an AfC article reviewer but no results show up on Google. How can i start reviewing AfC articles? Please tell me in the reply. By Lewis4642011 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Lewis4642011: Welcome, and thanks for wanting to help. You need more experience before you can review at AFC. See here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants. After you have been around longer and have more experience, then you may ask to join as a reviewer. RudolfRed (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The main 2 criteria there are: a Wikipedia account at least 90 days old, and a minimum of 500 undeleted edits to articles. Currently you have only 43 edits, so are not anywhere near experienced enough to review other's articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Will you accept this as a question?

A simple question: Will the hosts and other editors who participate in the Teahouse project accept a sincere thank you for helping people out and making WP a better place? Brunswicknic (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read Expect no thanks bop34 • talk • contribs 11:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Absolutely, thank away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

We definitely would but we wouldn't expect any. Most of us here are just volunteers, helping out the community on our own time. But a thank you is always welcome! Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to all hosts and other editors who participate in the Teahouse project. You are making WP a better thing, not merely in content, but in helpfulness and kindness. Good on youse. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for help moving new article that is blocked by a redirect to a chapter of an existing article

When I tried to move my draft of a translated article User:Eli185/The Holocaust in Austria to the mainspace, the move was blocked by a redirect to a chapter in another article History_of_the_Jews_in_Austria#The_Holocaust_in_Austria.

How can I remove the redirect to the chapter, then move the full article to the mainspace? (I can't find the redirect)

(All the other countries have mainspace articles for the Holocaust - Austria is an exception)

thank you. Eli185 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Eli185. I have taken care of the move. For future reference, this could have been requested using {{db-move}} ({{db-move|1=page to be moved|2=reason}}), or by posting to WP:RM#TR. Good work on the article! Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Eli185: P.S. You might very well have been about to do this anyway, but I'll mention you can add to the section of the article where the former redirect pointed {{Main|The Holocaust in Austria}} I was about to do that but then thought you might want to do so to flag your own work.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Eli185 (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes about Lithuanian places of interest

Main page about Lithuania consists short presentation. There are 3 photos about places of interest. Ninth forth and Trakai fotos are mixed . Please change 88.119.156.203 (talk) 11:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that you are talking about the article Lithuania. Are you talking about this? And if not, which article or other page are you talking about? -- Hoary (talk) 11:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe they mean the Lithuanian Wikipedia. In which case, they should discuss it on the Lithuanian Wikipedia. (88.119, please remember that each Wikipedia is a separate community.) If I'm wrong, you may trout me. MEisSCAMMER^{(talk)^(contribs)} 12:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I have checked several Wikipedia articles with photos of Trakai Island Castle and/or the Ninth Fort and haven't found any mix-ups. There are plenty of images of Trakai, in particular, so it is difficult to check every instance. Again, IP editor, please let us know which exact page you mean. Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 14:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

[1] Multiple sources:
"Title1". Work1.

"Title2". Work2.

"Title3". Work3.

[2] "Title1". Work1.

[3] "Title2". Work2.

[4] "Title3". Work3.

[2] Text between reftags

[3] Fichter, Stephen (July–August 2019). "Church Leadership in the 21st Century". New Jersey Catholic. Vol. 6, no. 6. Archdiocese of Newark. p. 23. OCLC 85487339.

[1]

[1]

[1]

Change Talking Tom and Friends logo

editing of wikipedia pages

Tea house

Edited article

Wikipedia:Birthday Committee

Where can I help?

Link to pdf problem

Question regarding Jessica Guo

Need help to improve my first article draft

Used to have old account

what will be the root cause for not labeling inward register in audit

April 1st Fun

Aydin Onac Wikepedia entry

[citation needed], [who?], and etc.

Thank you for adding me, what happens from here?

How to add pictures on a person's bibliography

Deletion

CREATING A PAGE

Login error: "There seems to be a problem with your login session; this action has been canceled as a precaution against session hijacking. Please resubmit the form. You may receive this message if you are blocking cookies."

Multiple citations

How to add a picture on an existing bibliography

April Fool nonsense

Is this Federal name change enough to change the page name with a redirect from the old/ derogatory geographic name?

Copyright on images?

Found a controversial sentence that has no working source

Hello everyone, I am a newbie here!

hello

Editing

does each award require reference

Blue Plaques

Personal attack!

Copyright violations

My Draft

Adding wikiproject tags to Afc submission

Move / "Move" option

1 April

Criteria.

Use of non-free image (correct use of rationale?)

Similar question

What do I do if someone is wrongfully threatening me with a sanction in Wikipedia over some harmless edits?

Citing and making changes

What do you mean when you say my edits are not harmless?

The danger of making lists of Jews...

Bunker Guru Dr. Vis

The box at the right hand side of articles

User Page Pics and Templates?

Is this file good for Wikipedia?

Redirects

What if main reference is not available online but is a bio at the back of the author's book?

Title-case redirect: R from other capitalisation or R from miscapitalisation?

Is there a Wikipedia article on the top 40 country music songs of 2021

Article assessments

Is this notable enough?

Inserting images and changing font colors

Should we be concerned that today, April 3, is the final countdown, 4.3.21 [sarcasm]

Is this edit a neutral point of view?

template for Bible verse

How to deal with this? (incivility)

Good edits

Same name mixup

Songs (with pages) on Albums (with pages)

Citing a source if it is not publically accessible

Are editor-oriented Wikipedia pages headache inducing to editors as well?

why my artical got decelined

Help

Publishing a Submitted Draft

Approving New Page - Please advise if additional information is required

Move over redir (I think?)

Talk page - article "White Lady"

finding disambiguation pages

How can I start an FA review?

Template(s) for disambiguating punctuation series?

Directory of Sudanese scientist in the world

Rebellion Research

Živko Lukić

Can Smithsonian Open Access images be used in articles?

musicians info box

Is it possible to have text and userboxes run parallel to each other?

Checking personal deleted edits

How can I create a bot account?

Should we be concerned that today, April 3, is the final countdown, 4.3.21 ^[sarcasm]