Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1030

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Archive 1025

←

Archive 1028

→

Article creation

How do I know if I have been confirmed or autoconfirmed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taymeedeeray (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Taymeedeeray: A person becomes autoconfirmed when they have their account for 4 days and made at least 10 edits. You can also check by going to your preferences. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 12:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Your account will become autoconfirmed when it's been in place for 4 days. If you are referring to Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2 you ought not to try to move it to mainspace in its current state even when you're autoconfirmed. It has no references to published reliable sources, so it would be deleted if you moved it to mainspace. You'll find advice at WP:Your first article. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I have improved my draft page Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2.Help me check if it's good enough for submission Taymeedeeray (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I am afraid it is not, Taymeedeeray. It has only two cited sources. One is obviously based on a press release and so does not count toward notability. The other is primarily about a contestant, and gives the show itself only brief coverage. This is not close to enough to pass our guideline on general notability. there need to be several Independent published reliable sources that discuss the topic in some detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks,Please how can I make it good enough for submission.Can somebody offer me help. I have seen pages with less cited sources that have been approved. Please educate me about it Taymeedeeray (talk) 06:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Taymeedeeray The argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems logical but never works on Wikipedia. If another article does not meet the standards, it may have slipped through, but that does not justify doing so in another case. And there may be particular reason in some other case which does not apply here. In any case, the only way to make this good enough for submission and then to pass review and be accepted is to find additional sources, probably 3-5 sources if possible. All the additional sources must discuss the show in some detail, say 4-5 paragraphs at least, depending on how the sources are written. All must be independent and reliable. Otherwise they will not count. It is as simple, and as hard, as that. Many bad sources are actually worse than none -- they hide any good sources present. Please read Your First Article and referencing for Beginners. Nothing else will work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I really appreciate your help. Apart from the cited sources issue. Is there anything else wrong with the page Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2. Taymeedeeray (talk) 07:01, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Taymeedeeray the sources are by far the most important thing. It seems to me that the ratio of test to tables is too low m-- there there is too little text for the large amount of information in table form. Biut all info shoulkd be supported by reliable sources. This includes info in tables.

Ideally, tables should be so designed that color helps but the information is available without color distinction. Remember that some readers are color-blind. But all of that can wait until you have the basic independent, relaible sources. Without them, nothing else is of any use or value. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Please I want to learn how to submit my article Taymeedeeray (talk) 13:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

You had an answer to your original question at #Article creation above, but please don't waste the time of reviewers by submitting before you have addressed the advice above regarding inadequate sources. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: The Voice Nigeria already has a section for season 2 at The Voice Nigeria#Season 2 (2017). Should there be a separate article, or should it be integrated into that section? Season 1 does not have its own article. As far as style, you might look at the styles used by other Voice franchise shows and/or Nigerian TV reality shows and look at the relevant Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television. We try to maintain consistency in styles where possible. I've started a discussion about this and the phantom season 3 at Talk:The Voice Nigeria#Season 3?. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

AlanM1The creation of separate articles for each season is the right thing to do as many other versions of the voice also adopt this system. The creation of seasons in the main page of the series is wrong as it will make the page jam-packed. The creation of separate pages for each season will be more informative and organized. Check for other versions of the voice for more information. Will soon create a page for the first season also. All we need is more reliable sources I would appreciate it if you can help with the creation of the first two seasons Taymeedeeray (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Taymeedeeray: I just wanted to point out the existing material in case you were unaware, to ensure that it is removed or made consistent with the separate article, gets a {{See also}} or equivalent template, etc. I don't have any experience with that particular show or Nigerian sources, though the WikiProjects might. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Seeking someone knowledgeable

Hello,

I had a new user (User:FireWallDragon) asked me a couple of questions today. I tried to respond as best I could using the notes I have and my own limited knowledge (see here), but I really didn't want to lead them astray, I was thinking someone experienced might post a note on FireWallDragon's talk page who would be more helpful and set everything straight in case I said something incorrect. I'm logging off but if you want to leave me a message saying what I was wrong about I'll see it eventually. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:617F:E9A7:AF1C:4546 (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have responded on the IP's talkpage, which is where the conversation started.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

and I have responded on User:FireWallDragon as requested. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposing separate page for Adani Group's subsidiary company Adani Transmission

The Adani Group has many subsidiary companies that are operating parallelly. Adani Transmission is one of the largest power transmission companies in India under which many projects operate. Incorporating all the information on the page of the parent company may result in the addition of an excessive amount of intricate detail. This is why I am proposing a separate page for its subsidiary company. There are sufficient independent reliable sources available to do the same. Pushpullshove (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The place for discussing it is the article's talk page. The procedure is described at WP:Splitting. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Entry for Chantal Akerman

Chantal Akerman - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Chantal_Akerman Chantal Anne Akerman (French: [akɛʁman]; 6 June 1950 – 5 October 2015) was a Belgian film director, screenwriter, artist, and film professor at the City College of New York. She is best known for Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975), which was dubbed a "masterpiece" by The New York Times. Cause of death‎: ‎Terry -- should be suicide, sadly. Years active‎: ‎1968–2015 Notable work‎: ‎Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Co... Nationality‎: ‎Black -- should be Belgian.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=chantal+akerman

Although the webpage itself appears correct (I haven't verified that), there are errors in the wikipedia summary entry shown on the results page following a Google search (please see above). I'm not sure whether or not wikipedia is responsible for the errors in question; but they are most unfortunate, and do need to be addressed.

--Cheval-en-fuite (talk) 13:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: The Wikipedia article is Chantal Akerman. User:Austin.......12324567163 had vandalized the article on Oct 15th. It was corrected in the Wikipedia article, but the Google search result still shows the vandalism. It should update to correct information in time. David notMD (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Titiksha (Festival)

So I created a Wikipedia page for the annual festival of our university and since I'm here you can guess that it was rejected. The reason is that there are no credible references. The references I provided are from news posts which were published during festivals from the most reputed 50+ years old news publishers. Also since the event happens every year from the last 11 years, it should be notable too.

Draft link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Titiksha_(Festival)

Thank You for the support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Shoaib Ahmed 00, and welcome to the Teahouse. The problem is that the stories you reference from the Excelsior are obviously simply based on press releases from the University. Wikipedia isn't interested in what the people creating or sponsoring an event say about it: it is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about it. If you can find some independent reviews of the festival, that might do it. But it is likely that it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --ColinFine (talk) 12:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, ColinFine, thanks for replying. If it's not a news source then I am not sure if a blog post will work because they are not reliable. Pretty much all the references that I am finding from other technical fests pages are news sources. There's even a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_(festival) which have notice from Wikipedia about reference absence but is still published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by a "news source", Shoaib Ahmed 00. The point is that those are not stories where the newspaper has sent a reporter to investigate the festival, and write their own account of it: they are clearly made by reading what the organisers say, and regurgitating it. And you are right, blogs are almost never regarded as reliable. As for Horizon (festival): many of our six million articles were written before our standards became more exacting, and would not be accepted now. That article should probably be nominated for deletion, but the nominator should look for sources first, and add them if they exist. (Ideally, the editor who added the tag should have done so). I am not interested in spending any time on that.

On another subject, please sign your posts on talk and discussion pages, with four tildes (~~~~). If you don't, pings don't work - so I didn't get a notification about your reply even though you pinged me. --ColinFine (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ColinFine thanks for the sign suggestion, I will try that in this comment. So even though it's a state-level technical fest, there is no way to make a Wikipedia page of it?Shoaib Ahmed 00 (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Shoaib Ahmed 00: if there is no independent writing about it, then it is not notable (in Wikipedia's sense) and there is no way to write an article about it. (I strongly advise dropping the phrase make a page of it - that is something you do on social media, not an encyclopaedia.) --ColinFine (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

How to publish here?

I want to know how can I publish articles in wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesecretorder (talk • contribs) 15:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thesecretorder, and welcome to the Teahouse. I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months improving some of our six million existing articles before they try the difficult task of writing a new article. But the place to start is by reading your first article.

Having just read your user page, I would also advise that you carefully read What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia articles summarise, in a neutral manner, what has already been published about a subject. Wikipedia does not accept original research, and advocacy of any kind, no matter how well intentioned, is not permitted. --ColinFine (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

why my English pages are being deleted

why my English and Russian page are being deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by JbNUUz (talk • contribs) 16:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Your account on the Russian Wikipedia has been blocked indefinitely for a reason which translates as "systematic creation of advertising pages". As for the English Wikipedia you need to read WP:NOTADVERT. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know...

What is the Teahouse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theawesomepikachu20 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Theawesomepikachu20, The teahouse is a place for new editors to ask questions about wikipedia. MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 17:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theawesomepikachu20 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

MMA Athlete Page Creation

Hello, I am trying to create a page from an athlete but I am coming across the following error: Subject fails WP:MMABIO. Need at least 3 top tier fight to pass pass the notablity. At this stage the subject has only one fight under UFC. WP:TOOSOON may be 12 more month if he could secured 2 more fight from UFC.

My question is, he will have his second fight at UFC on November 16th. In order to create the page, only UFC is considered? He has other fights at major events like Imortal FC 6, 7 and 10, and Future FC 4. There are 18 professional fights in all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Celsojunior96 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Celsojunior96 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The guidelines you cite states "such as the UFC" which seems to be just an example, and not a limitation. If the other fights you mention are considered "top tier", that would probably count. What also matters is significant coverage in independent reliable sources; even if they are technically notable, there must still be sources. 331dot (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Help with 3M edit request

Hello, I'm Kelsie, and I'm working to suggest improvements to the Wikipedia article about my employer, 3M, at Talk:3M. My first two requests have been reviewed and completed, but I'm having a hard time getting editor feedback on my most recent request to improve the article's structure by removing the "Founding" and "Expansion and modern history" section headings and moving existing claims related to acquisitions and divestitures into a new "Acquisitions and divestitures" subsection.

For this request, I'm not proposing any new text, I'm just proposing a better way to organize information. I've received help after posting here before, so I thought I'd try again. Perhaps someone here can assist? Thanks! 192.28.1.35 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It appears it has been done now, based on the reply on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding a photograph

How do I add a photograph to an entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyPuss (talk • contribs) 19:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

MickeyPuss Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can review the process at WP:UPIMAGE. You will need to make sure that the image was either taken by you or has a license/copyright that permits you to upload it. 331dot (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia page

How to make a Wikipedia page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kennedy 050501 (talk • contribs)

Kennedy 050501 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new Wikipedia article(not just "page") is the most difficult task on Wikipedia- it is more difficult when attempting to write about yourself, as you seem to be doing. Wikipedia strongly discourages editors from writing about themselves, please see the autobiography policy. Wikipedia is not interested in what someone wants to say about themselves, and is not social media for people to write about themselves. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say with significant coverage say about subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in your case, the definition of a notable musician). In order for you to be successful in writing about yourself, you would need to forget everything you know about yourself and only write based on independent sources. Most people cannot do that. If you truly feel that you meet the notability criteria, you should allow independent editors to take note of you and write about you.

Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

space dust

is space dust harmful to human — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelly potato you (talk • contribs) 16:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

See this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theawesomepikachu20 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jelly potato you: For future reference, questions like this are handled by volunteers at the Reference Desk. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A mysterious attack from an anonymous user

I want to undid a vandalism at page Jørgen Olesen by an unknown anonymous user who after the undid disappear with the IP address making me the vandal instead. Can anyone tell me what's going on here.

Dreambar (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dreambar, I agree with AlanM1 who reverted the edit. What happened was you made an edit that broke a link. AlanM1 reverted it so the link works again. Does that help? Also, I tagged your user page for speedy deletion because it appears you copied a Wikipedia guideline to your user page. This is not permitted. See WP:USERPAGE for more info on what you can have on your user page. Interstellarity (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Dreambar and welcome to the Teahosue. The history makes it clear. In this edit an IP editor committed vandalism. In this edit another editor reverted. In this edit, apparently thinking that you were fixing the IP's vandalism, you accidentally broke a link, and in this edit AlanM1 reverted you, fixing the link. The final edit summary notes that your edit was made in god faith, Dreambar, and no one thinks you did vandalism. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

New editor ... please help

I work as a freelance writer, and one of my clients has recently asked me to edit/update information regarding their business. This is the first time that I've done any editing here, and I'm hoping that it may naturally give me the opportunity to get involved in editing and writing other content, just as myself.

That being said ... I know I have a LOT to learn, but there doesn't seem to be an easy "tutorial" about how to make edits in such a way that someone doesn't just take it down the moment I submit it. :P

I have edited two articles now, both for my client, and both times the edits were immediately removed. Now the first one I understand because my citations weren't great, and I'm working on research to improve upon that. But the second one was simply stating facts about the company's locations straight from the company itself with citations from lots of different sources. It's hard to imagine how it could be more objective, especially since much of it was simply replacing old information with more up-to-date material from the same citation, but it was removed for conflict of interest reasons.

So apparently, I have a lot MORE to learn than I thought. :/

I am looking for whatever help/advice I can get to help me reach a point where I can make contributions, both for my client AND myself, that will be of better use to the community here.

Thanks in advance!

Balderdinger (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Balderdinger as you are being paid to edit, you must, before makign anyfurther edsits, dsiclsoe this in accordance with the instructions at WP:PAID. This is absolutely mandatory -- failure to do so will result in your being blocked from editing. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

For your information #Balderdinger, this edit was reverted necaiuse it put a citation into a section heading which is not the Wikipedia style, as the reverting edit summary indicated. However, this sequewnce of 3 edits was reverted as promotional. As a paid editor, you need to be particularly cautious about our guideline on promotion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If an edited of yours is reverted and you are unsure why, or think the reversion incorrect, Balderdinger, you should follow the Bold, revert, discuss cycle, and ask on the article talk page, possibly pinging the editor who reverted you with a calm and polite question or statement of your intent. You should also learn how to read Page history it will tell you much about what has gone on with editing a page. When acting as a paid editor, for anything more than simple factual corrections that are well sourced, you should post suggested changes on the article talk page, and use {{Request edit}} to ask other editors to review and implement your suggestions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Logo

How do I add a company's logo to their infobox on their Wikipedia page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchipmunk (talk • contribs) 01:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jchipmunk. You can find out some general information about this at Wikipedia:Logos and WP:COPY#Guidelines for images and other media files, but there are generally two types of logos which can be uploaded to Wikipedia: non-free files and free files. Most company logos you'll see online on official websites, etc. tend be "non-free files" unless they're considered to be within the public domain for some reason or can be shown to have been released under a free license that Wikipedia accepts, and it's the copyright status of the file which is going to determine whether and how it can be used. So, if you can provide a link to the Wikipedia article written about the company where you want to use the logo and link to the source of the logo, it will make it easier for someone to give you a more specific answer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Getting an image placed to the left of an article, in a specific location below a heading.

I've been editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Forbes and using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Robson as a guide to place images within the text area (== Climbing routes ==) on the left border, and while it does go left, it ends up near the bottom of the article. I see 2 examples in Mt. Robson and I don't see that I'm doing anything different. I thought it was maybe another incompatibility between preview and live, but I published and it's the same. Help, please. TIA ***EDIT: In actuality I want the pic a bit below the heading, but moved it up to try and make it work.*** BrettA343 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

BrettA343 With multiple images in an article with limited text, "stackup" can cause odd placement. Have a look at Help:Pictures#Avoiding stack-ups and Help:Pictures#Galleries for soem suggestions. But remember that even if the result looks good on your screen, people with different screen sizes, resolutions, mobil vs desktop, etc etc, may not see the same effect. Good luck, and thanks for the photos. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel Thanks - I tried moving the upper 2 images down and it got the result I wanted. And I tried looking at my wife's cellphone (I have landline only) last night for what I've done to date and was generally pleased with it - I'll look at this one soon. Thanks and you're welcome for the pics. BrettA343 (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Notability and Copyright in a Hockey History Article

I am considering writing a Wikipeadia article about little known Montreal Canadien hockey players and I am not sure if it would be considered "notable". I have spent 15 years researching Montreal Canadiens players of the period 1910 to 1930 about whom little or nothing is known and, in most cases, no photo has been published in a book, website or Wiki article. Some players were lacrosse or baseball players who only briefly played professional hockey. Several were known by pseudonyms at the time to hide the fact that they were not French Canadians, as required of the 1910-17 Canadiens.

I have discovered the origin and sports history of several dozen early hockey players and tracked down photos published 75 to 100 years ago in newspapers (some no longer published), archives and in some cases obtained from descendents.

Citations would include Claude Mouton's books in which the players are listed but no information given, Hockey database website and several Wikipedia articles about specific years' Canadiens teams, the NHL, Montreal Canadiens, etc.

My questions -

Would this be considered notable?

Would photos published 75 years ago in a newspaper still in business remains copyrighted?

If those photos remain copyrighted, do I need to seek written permission from the newspaper?

thank you

Bill Katz 70.67.229.196 (talk) 01:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi IP 70.67.229.196/Bill Katz. Regarding the Wikipedia notability of the individual players, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Ice hockey or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey since that's where you're likely going to find editors familiar with relevant guidelines related to hockey players, teams, etc. Regarding about whether a list article can be created about these players, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, but you could also ask about this at WikiProject Ice hockey.

The photo question is a bit more complex and depends on a number of different things such as who took the photo, when they took it, where they took the photo, when it was first published, whether the subject is deceased, etc. but you can find out some more about these things at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Guidelines for images and other media files and Wikipedia:Image use policy. Generally, 75 years is not really a long time when it comes to copyright status (e.g. in the United States only photos published prior to January 1, 1924, are considered to be public domain solely because of their age); so, most photos you find published online or in print publications (regardless of whether the publication is still in business) are going to be assumed to be still under copyright protection unless there are some other factors which come into play. For more specific help on this, it might be better to ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions since that's where you likely to find editors who have experience in figuring out copyright stuff. Just for reference, even if the photos do turn out to be still protected by copyright, it may be possible to upload them as non-free content, but only if they are used in accordance with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, which tends to be quite restrictive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, IP Editor, and welcome to the Teahouse. You are asking two quite different questions, with two different answers. First as to otability. That does not in any way depend on photos or other images. If there are multiple, published independent and reliable sources that discuss the topic in some detail, that topic is usually notable. Sources need not be online. It is harder to find sources from 50-100 years ago, but nit sounds as if you have found several. Not that they still must be reliable. Diaries and such unpublished personal accounts are no better than modern blogs, unless reprinted by a reliable source. Newspapers, magazines, and books are usually good sources, although the details do matter. Also, sources should not be purely local, as a rule.

Once you ahve found sufficient sources, you cna write an article based oin the sou4rces, citing them to show where your information came from. See referencing for Beginners for info on how mto do this. I ad vise tha tyou use the article eizard to create a draft, as a starting point. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Now as to copyright. Copyright, particularly US copyright law, is rather complex. See this famous chart for when works go into the publid domain (PD) under US law. Anything published before 1924 wil be PD, but so will many things published later. In particular, works where the copyright ewas not renewed often fell into the public domain, biut it takes soem work to demonstrate this in a particular case. If a work is not in the public domain, it may be usable under Fair use, if it complies with our non-free content use policy. My advise, get the article written and sourced first, and only then worry too much about images. Images are nice to have, but rarely essential to an article here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Attempting to write an article

If i am writing about a show I am close to and know the details of, how do i prove or show this as a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HauntedDU (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@HauntedDU: Welcome to Wikipedia. You cannot use your personal knowledge in the article. All information must come from published, reliable sources. Read WP:YFA for how to get started on creating an article draft for review. Also, read WP:COI. RudolfRed (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ebola

Please see the article listed below. The discoverer of the Ebola Virus was a Congolese Doctor named Dr. Jean-Jacques Muyembe. It is incorrect to give European doctors, especially Dr. Peter Piot, sole credit for discovering the disease when they were not onsite to draw blood, etc.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2019/11/04/774863495/this-congolese-doctor-discovered-ebola-but-never-got-credit-for-it-until-now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.44.230 (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The place to suggest improvements to an article is on the article's talk page; in this case Talk:Ebola virus disease. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! What are the odds, I saw that earlier today and realized that our coverage of it might need to change as well. Luckily however, you can make that edit yourself, you don't need us to do it for you. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you! I hope this inspires you to edit the relevant articles (such as Jean-Jacques Muyembe-Tamfum and help to improve our coverage. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

In this case, the article is semi-protected, so the IP editor cannot edit it. Starting a discussion on the article's talk page is the next step here. RudolfRed (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Article Improved 'Yusuf Magaji Bichi'

Hello Teahouse,

I am happy to be here, I have improved my draft page Draft; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Yusuf_Magaji_Bichi. Can someone help me and check if it's good enough for acceptance in Wiki. Ibnadambici (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Declined twice, resubmitted. Reviewers' called for better referencing to convey notability. David notMD (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Date format question

Rev. Samuel Harrison#Memorial tablet has a date error in the reference (Fall–Winter 2008–2009) and I can't figure out how to fix it. Thanks. deisenbe (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Your bedyime reading is likely Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. In practice Fall–Winter 2008–2009 is not a valid date format: and for this article Month day, year is required; or even simply year, though that can be ambiguous. In practice the referenced URL contains .../resources/20090314034819.pdf and the number bit looks very YYYMMDDHHMMSS so we have March 14, 2009 as a viable date if I am not mistaken.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Djm-leighpark, the proper date here is Fall/Winter 2008 – 09 as found in the source, as allowed by Help:Citation Style 1#Dates and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Ranges and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Seasons of the year. There are quite a few allowed formats other than Month day, year and when a source such as a magazine states its publication date as a range or a season or even a range of seasons, the citation should follow the source, Template:Cite magazine says Can be full date (day, month, and year) or partial date (month and year, season and year, or year). but the more complete Help:Citation Style 1 gives more options, linking to MOS:DATEFORMAT and showing both ranges and seasons as acceptable. This is an unusual case, but many magazines give their publication dates as "Fall", "Spring", "Summer", or "Winter", and since that is how they will be indexed in libraries, that is how we cite them. Converting such a date to a Month day, year format based on the URL is an error, arguably WP:OR. @Deisenbe: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC) @Djm-leighpark: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I would say the dash should be unspaced: "Fall/Winter 2008–09" or maybe "Fall/Winter 2008–2009". As I understand Help:Citation Style 1#Dates, the idea is to use the same date format spec'd by the source. MOS:DATERANGE says to use an unspaced dash for a range unless one side or the other has a space in it. The way I read it, though, "Fall/Winter" is not just a part of 2008, instead referring to both 2008 and 2009; i.e., it means "Fall 2008 through Winter that spans 2008/2009". As far as whether to add the "20" in "2009", it depends on whether the CS1 doc's "follow the source" or our own MoS should govern (consensus was changed from 2008–09 to 2008–2009 in the last year or two). I do question why, if this is acceptable for the date parm, it throws an error. I see that the doc suggests that if it does this, just don't use the template

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought I had avoided the error, but it seems I was mistaken. The form "Fall 2008 – Winter 2009" seems the closest one can get using the template and avoiding the error, or one can use the template an accept the error, or not use a template. But in any case basing an exact date on a URL is incorrect, in my view. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you, and especially @DESiegel: for fixing it. deisenbe (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding New Subjects on Wikipedia

Is there a centralized place where people can find all the 'red text' topics that have no article related to them on Wikipedia? And why is it that across WikiProjects that there is no one format for discovering those new topics that are in high demand? Is it a matter of freedom to the community, or something else? I am a novice editor currently using the WikiEducation course program, and I am deeply fascinated by the editorial process so far. Ly-So99 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Ly-So99:. One resource that might help you is Category:Wikipedia red link lists, which contains lists of red links meeting certain criteria. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Try WP:WANTED, I think that's what you're describing. - X201 (talk)

HOW CAN I TAG A BLOCK NOTICE FOR AN UNDID POST

I want to know how I can attach certain notices like block notices on an undid post.

Dreambar (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dreambar You cannot post block notices as you cannot block users, since you are not an administrator. You can use warning notices if they are applicable; a list of such notices can be found at WP:WARN. Please don't "yell" in section headers(use all capital letters) 331dot (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

How do you protect a Wikipedia page?

I tried and I never did seem to actually do it. I need help please? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The person who should not be named (talk • contribs) 14:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, only administrators are able to protect pages. If you have a page that requires protection, you can make a request at RFPP. Kosack (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT A VANDALISM BOT

Do vandalism bots operate independent as programs or do they have users?. I want to know everything about them and their existence on the encylopedia information system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreambar (talk • contribs) 13:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dreambar. You can find out more about bots in Wikipedia:Bots. All bots have operators (typically the person who created them) and need to be approved for use; so, if you have a question about a particular bot, you can always ask the operator on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note however, Dreambar, that although all bots have operators, some run unattended with no human doing diredt supervision of their edits for significant periods of time, Dreambar. In some cases a bot will continue to run with no input from the bot-owner for months. Other bots are manually restarted on a regular basis. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What job you do?

Can you read my entry to wikipidia. I had done some speling mistakes how I can corect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Dinesh kumar pandey (talk • contribs) 17:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Dr. Dinesh kumar pandey: See the note on your talk page about how to create a draft article for review. Typos and other errors are fixed by editing the page. RudolfRed (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Mountain Photos - Does Wiki Want Decent 'View From Summit' Shots Rather Than No Shots At All?

Not the clearest of filenames: ViewFromMistayaSummitToSAndTheWaptaIcefield

Some mountains aren't particularly majestic and have no shots at all in Wikipedia and no good prospects of shots, but some of these peaks have great views. Rather than no photo at all, are passable photos of views from the summit acceptable? They could always be turfed or moved below the right sidebar if someone comes up with a shot that shows the mountain well. BrettA343 (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

BrettA343 If the photo improves the article in yo9ur opinion, and is relevant, why not be WP:BOLD? There is no rule that a photo in an infobox for a mountain must be of the mountain as far as I know. But you could always discuss at an article talk page, or if there is an active relevant wikiproject, on its discussion page. Use a descriptiove caption, perhaps "View from Mount XYZ showing ..." or soemthing of the sort. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

By the way, "Wiki" is a type of software, used on many many sites. This site is Wikipedia. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA343: I completely agree with DESiegel in that views from summits can definitely enhance some mountain articles- especially if they show distinctive ridges, icefields, mountain huts, access routes etc. But these should be added with care so that they do actually enhance the encyclopaedic nature article, rather than simply show off your photographic or mountaineering abilities. Do consider joining WP:WikiProject Mountains or WP:WikiProject Alps if these topics interest you, and remember that you don't even have to place the image within the article, but simply add appropriate categorisation to your photos to allow a user to find all the images relevant to that mountain on Commons. Looking at your uploads, thus far], I suggest you make a declaration on your Commons userpage that you are/were the owner of Intersite Imaging, and be prepared to prove that, if necessary. The folks over at Commons are very fussy about potential copyright infringements, and tend to flag anything dubious for speedy deletion, especially if they see watermarks like those on some of your images. We have a system called 'OTRS which allows an editor to supply off-wiki evidence that they own the rights to their photos, though there should rarely be any need for these to contain watermarks. Another minor helpful tip is to suggest that you make clearer filenames with spaces in them. This makes it a lot easier to find an image and appreciate its contents. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

So I've made clearer filenames for my last upload as three of you suggested (it's a bit of a pain since I have to rename all uploads from what I found useful - upper case 'S' meant South BTW - my other view shot was to the NW), but I'll just be a bit slower with things. I'm generally not a 'joiner' and don't know if I'll join a project, and I note that some people haven't been active for more than a decade in "Mountains", which makes me wonder about the need for more users or any benefit to me. I'm here mainly because Wikipedia asked me to donate $ or time and I don't have $ to spare. And I don't know how I could 'prove' my ownership to Intersite Imaging over the 'net, since I toasted it maybe a decade ago, so if their fussiness becomes a hassle, I'm gone. I thought that's what the ownership questions were for - I've clicked that the work is mine and that means the work IS mine. The other reason I joined is that Google Earth (& therefore Google Maps) are using my photos incorrectly (especially for Mts. Lyell (& Walter Peak), Forbes and Arctomys), so I'm starting here for areas that need addressing so Google Earth will listen to me and not reject my (correct) suggestions for change. Rant over. BrettA343 (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries, BrettA343. Yeah - some people join projects, then move on; others remain active editors for years. The reason for 'fussiness' over images is actually intended to protect the interests of genuine rights holders like you and other photographers, not to be awkward (though I confess it can seem like that, sometimes!) But here on Wikipedia we don't control what happens on that sister project. And yet so many other people do claim images they've uploaded are their own when it turns out they're not. So a pretty firm approach is taken wherever there's doubt. Anyway, it's great to see your pictures - I was up roughly that way last summer, itching to get up high above the snowline, but had to stay low down with a touring family camping holiday with the kids. It was still great to see the mountains from lower down for a change. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries here, either Nick Moyes. And yeah, I'd realized it's to protect photo rights but it's not worth the hassle to defend since I'm now an old retired fart. Glad you like the pics and glad you liked the area, but sorry for the itch ;-). I haven't been to the UK for for decades, now. Best regards from the colonies, BrettA343 (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Corbin Harney/ nuclear weapons tests in Nevada

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Harney The list / chart of US nuclear weapons testing that is at the bottom of the article is misleading it includes the hydrogen bomb tests that were all held in the Marshall Islands, while only the much smaller atomic bombs were testing in Nevada. Can we change it? I think that it is misleading to have all those tests listed there.Toandanel49 (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Nuclear weapons tests of the United States is what we call a navbox, which lists various articles dealing with a particular topic so that readers can easily navigate to those articles if they want to do so; in this case, it (ideally) includes links to all Wikipedia articles dealing with U.S. nuclear tests. Corbin Harney is included in the navbox, under "Related topics", because of his anti-nuclear-testing activism, but that doesn't mean that every other article linked in the navbox is related to him, just that he is related to the topic of U.S. nuclear tests. Deor (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Forget to ping @Toandanel49:. Deor (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very muchToandanel49 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Remove "Citation needed" template?

Hey, I added a source to the History section of the Patterson, California article. I have reason to remove the cite needed temp. Should I? Help is appreciated. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 16:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mac Henni: Hello and welcome to the teahouse. Yes, now that a source is there the template can be removed. I've removed the template from the article in question. Thanks for your contributions --DannyS712 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Thanks. I shall do that. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 19:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Accept drafts

I would like to help out and be able to accept draft pages on Wikipedia, any ideas how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bibian48 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for wanting to help. Your account needs to be at least 90 days old, with at least 500 edits. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Participants for other requirements on how to become a reviewer. RudolfRed (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewers have to have at least 500 edits, demonstrate knowledge of notability policies, and it's good to have experience in deletion discussions. I'd recommend waiting a few months and gaining experience before applying to become a reviewer. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Archives PGN/ Gloria Casarez

Gloria Casarez I am working on this article. Philadelphia Gay News referrences are a problem, at least for me, a relatively new WP editor. Either they do not maintain good searchable archives, or I do not know yet how to stabilize the archive reference, so references sometimes (but not always ) just bring up the latest issue, not the intended article. Any advice? I am collecting alternate references for the same items, but I would like to keep/salvage PGN references — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toandanel49 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Toandanel49, and welcome to the Teahouse. I posted to Talk: Gloria Casarez, suggesting using the internet archive as described in Help:Archiving a source. Please let us know if that solves the issue. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt and courteous answer. I am trying to learn how to use the Wayback machine, but I am finding it difficult to understand. I don't have a webaddress for the article, the references go to a current link, so I am not quite understanding how to find it. Could you give me an example? Toandanel49 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

okay, I studied archives and I added archive to reference number 2 (Suzi Nash article) I found the archive, but it wants and archive date. I have the date of the archived article, but that is not the one they want, or I made a mistake. I am understanding more, could you check the article Suzi Nash reference two to see what I am doing wrong?Toandanel49 (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Toandanel49 here are some steps to follow. These assume templated citations (i.e., using {{Cite Web}}, {{cite News}} or perhaps {{Citation}} or one of the other Cite XXX templates).

Note in the existing cite the "Retrieved" date (usually at the end of the cite).
Find where the citation is defined in the article.
Open the relevant section for editing in the wiki-source editor.
Copy the URL from the |url= parameter.
Go to web.archive.org in another browser tab or window.
Paste the URL copied from the article (in step 4 above) into the field that says "Enter the URL or words related ...".
Look into the calendar view, and find the latest snapshot that was before the retrieved date, or the first one after the retrieved date. Click on the day in the calendar. Click on the snapshot listed (or one of them if there are several).
Verify that the page displayed has the content that supports the statements in the article, and should be used as a source.
Note the date of the snapshot, and copy the wayback machine URL that displays the archived snapshot. (The date is also present in that URL, e.g. in https://web.archive.org/web/20150924001352/http://www.epgn.com/arts-culture..., the "20150924001352" shows it was archived on 2015-09-24 (24 September 2015).)
Return to the article. To the {{Cite Web}} (or other Cite XX template), add |archive-url= and set its value to the URL from the wayback machine (e.g., https://web.archive.org/web/ ...). If the parameter is already present, change the value to that URL.
Add the parameter |archive-date= and set the value to the date of the snapshot you used (from step 9 above, not today's date). The date format should match what is used for other archive dates or citation dates in the article.
Add the parameter |url-status= and set the value to "unfit" if the content has been changed so it no longer supports the content, or to "usurped" if the link now goes to a totally different site. In this particular case I used "unfit". Note that the common reason to add these parameters is that the original site now returns an error, so the default value for this parameter is "dead", so you don't have to include the parameter at all in such cases. See {{Cite Web}} for the complete template documentation.
Add an edit summary such as "Now using archive URL (IA) for one PGN cite".
Save the changes (click Publish).
Check that the source cite now links to the proper page.
Do it all again for the next citation that needs to be changed.

Here is an example edit I did following the above steps. I hope this is helpful. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(ed. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC))

Hijacked site with possible malware

www.clydesite.co.uk which is used as a reference on a large number of ship articles has been hijacked and visitors who have clicked through to see the reference are offered the opportunity to click a button to prove they are not a robot or similar which I presume will download malware. Is there a way to globally block any clicking through pending the cites being changed? The information provided by clydesite is now hosted on clydeships.co.uk but its not simply a change to this website in our citing as the page addresses have also changed so it needs to be done manually and will take a lot of time Lyndaship (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lyndaship. I'm not getting a request to prove that I'm not a robot, but it does appear that the clydesite is no longer up and running. This kind of thing can happen when a website changes domains; so, I don't think that would automatically mean that there's a malware problem. It probably should be treated as a WP:DEADREF and WP:ELDEAD and the links either replaced by archived versions (they may exist) or by the new links (if the content on the "new" pages is identical to what was being cited). If the site was used as a source for lots of articles, then perhaps asking for help on the various WikiProjects whose scopes the articles fall under might make the cleanup go faster. There might also be a way for someone to figure out how to get a WP:BOT to do some of the cleanup, which will definitely make things go faster. Perhaps asking one of the members of WP:BAG or asking at WP:VPT can clarify whether that's possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Lyndaship: Posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Bot to replace highjacked links. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Follow-up to Right name but wrong band

I'm good... I will have the Supertones article ready soon. Please take down the OC Supertones link from the Surf Guitar Bands page okay?

Music web guy (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The OC Supertones are NOT a surf-rock band! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surf_musicians Music web guy (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Music web guy: If you have suggestions for edits to an article, please discuss on that article's talk page. RudolfRed (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Music web guy: ... which, in this case, is apparently Talk:List of surf musicians? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Adding links in Wikimedia to Wikipedia articles; "Page does not exist"

Hi, again... I've been editing a Mt. Forbes image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mt._Forbes_Summit_From_Icefields_Parkway.jpg text description to put in links and though I have "Saskatchewan River Crossing" (see edit), and there's an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saskatchewan_River_Crossing,_Alberta article the attempted link turns red and says the page doesn't exist. Is this an issue between Wikipedia and Commons (i.e. the latter doesn't know about the former's article)? If so, is there a way around it? If not, Am I doing something stupid? (Happy Guy Fawkes Day, Brits!) TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA343: Fixed. If in doubt, use the "W:" namespace prefix code per Wikipedia:Namespace#Aliases. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

TimTemplton Well, who'd have thunk it: a simple 'W:'. Thanks, muchly, Tim. :-)! BrettA343 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA343: The Wiki software used on the various Wikimedia projects organizes pages into namespaces. When you're editing a page on the Wikimedia Commons project ("Commons", as opposed to "Wikipedia"), the default namespace (when you don't have a something: prefix in a wikilink) is Commons' main (Gallery) namespace. This is similar to wikilinks on Wikipedia without a prefix pointing to Wikipedia's main (article) namespace. So, if you want to refer to a page in another namespace and/or on another project, you add a prefix. On Commons, a w: prefix refers to Wikipedia's main namespace. Conversely, on Wikipedia, a c: prefix refers to Commons' main namespace. There are many other prefixes and shortcuts mentioned in the help pages I linked above. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Yeah, I noticed all the prefixes before, but your explanation puts it together so I'm starting to understand, I think. Thanks, Alan! BrettA343 (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

About blanking

(Hypothetical question) If a person has a Wikipedia Article about them, then they edit out some info, stating it is personal information (and that they have confirmed it is them) is it right to let that edit/s stay? Or does it require some additional process, e.g. oversight?

Thanks. Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 00:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It depends, Dibbydib. If the information has not been reliably published somewhere, then it should be removed, though preferably not by the subject); it is then possible that it should be oversighted. If the information has been reliably published, then they should not delete it: they may request it be removed, and it is up to a consensus of uninvolved editors to decide whether it is encyclopaedic or not. But in general, the wishes of the subject are not a major consideration for Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the information of encyclopedic value? For example, a celebs exact home address may be available with a little research, or even published in multiple reliable sources, but is generally not encyclopedic and I've seen it removed for that reason. The current consensus against mentioning non-notable children's (and other relatives') names and other personal info reflects this as well. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant policy here is WP:BLP, in particular WP:BLPKIND. Living persons are not completely helpless when it comes to content about them added to Wikipedia, and they should try to be helped whenever possible; however, being the written about on Wikipedia (e.g. being the subject of an article) doesn't give them any special editorial control as explained in WP:OWN. Inappropriate content can be removed by anyone per WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLPREMOVE, but editors might not always be in agreement as to whether something is inappropriate and further discussion may be needed at WP:BLPN to sort things out. At the same time, if the subject of a BLP has removed content, left an edit summary or posted somewhere why they feel it's inappropriate, and it's reasonable to believe that they are who they say they are, then I don't think there should be a rush to re-add the content because there's a good chance that will lead to edit warring. The content can always be re-added if a consensus can be established to do so, but it might be better to err on the side of caution until that time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Topics With Little To No Info

Hello! Since I am new to Wikipedia I had a question on dealing with articles that may have very limited information. If a Wikipedia article about a topic contains no references/citations for a claim made in reference to another separate topic (or article), and I was not able to locate any information on such references myself, Is there anyone aware of some ways in which I could locate references confirming claims made in the original article?

Thanks! BLeverich (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BLeverich. I believe the most common way to try and find reliable sources is by searching for them online, but being available online isn't a requirement as long as the sources are otherwise published and accessible and used in proper context; moreover, even sources not written in English can sometimes be used. WP:RS#See also provides some links to pages where more ideas about where to find sources (or certain types of sources) can be found. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Biased and nonfactual comments used for deletion

Question regarding: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Nichelle Rodriguez

There are a few things that brought a class group to this draft and we can not seem to find a wiki reference to help explain. There are two mentions of the original editor as being paid to write this article. After finding that editor's response as denying payment, how can that reason be posted as fact and ultimately as a reason to delete the draft? Wikipedia is all about facts.

Second, the editor who is requesting deletion has not changed the only reason (promotional) even after edits which seems to show some sort of bias or conflict of interest.

Third and lastly, the last 'delete' talk mentions that the draft does not reflect any reason that the subject is notable. By mentioning the businesses would seem to then be back on the lines of 'promotional'. Do you have an idea of how to best manage that balance. AKinderWorld (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, AKinderWorld. When a user's actions seem to make that user's paid status highly likely, it will be treated as a fact in such discussions by many editors here even in the face of denials -- paid editors who violate the rules by doing paid editing without disclosing in accordance with WP:PAID are, after all, expected to lie about it.

If this draft is ever to be an article, it will need to discuss the reasons why Rodriguez is notable, in a neutral and factual way, without either promoting her or attacking her, merely reporting what reliable sources have said

Note that any editor may comment in such a deletion discussion, but arguments based on Wikipedia policy tend to get more weight, and the arguments of experienced editors with a good reputaiton may also get more weight, although not always. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions suggests some arguments which don't tend to fare well, as well as some that are more effective, when supported by the facts. Accusing other editors of bias or malice rarely works well, and is contrary to the no personal attacks policy unless clearly backed with demonstrable facts. Even then it may backfire. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Revolve NTNU must be unblocked.

Hi!

We are the marketing team of Revolve NTNU. We have been trying to update and edit the Wikipedia page of our organization, Revolve NTNU. But seems like there has been some misunderstanding between Wikipedia admins on the changes we have published. We have been blocked from editing. We believe that there is simply just a big misunderstanding since we can't figure out what we have done wrong. All the information that we have added to the User:Revolve NTNU page is facts and relevant information about our organization, Revolve NTNU. There is no sensitive information about individual people or about the organization itself.

We hope you guys can unblock us and also give us permission to edit the page and accept our published changes.

Our page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolve_NTNU

Best regards, Rafi Khajeh Marketing team, Revolve NTNU — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tehrafi (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Revolve_NTNU_must_be_unblocked., which is a more appropriate forum for the question. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 18:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tehrafi and welcome to the Teahouse. You need to understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a marketing tool. Wikipedia has little interest in what an organisation wants to say about itself. Wikipedia reports only what has been written in independent WP:Reliable sources. I note that you have not yet complied with the WP:COI and WP:Paid requirements notified on your talk page. Dbfirs 20:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tehrafi and helpful Teahouse folks. I've left a note on the article talk page after seeing the AN/I report. The article is very out of date, but unfortunately the corresponding Norwegian page has few sources. What we really need is third-party sources (newspapers, NRK reports ... ) to update the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

IP Banned

How to left banned IP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OthnielM. (talk • contribs) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

OthnielM., Howdy hello! I'm not quite sure what your question is. Could you expand on what the issue is? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

New editor

What defines a new editor? Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, New editors are editors who are new to Wikipedia. We all were new editors before. Interstellarity (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, There is no official definition. Certainly any editor that is not auto-confirmed, less than 10 edits and 4 days. But I would say being a new editor may last a while. Until folks understand all the core policies and have edited in a variety of areas, I would say they are new and learning. That doesn't mean those editors are any less valuable or have less pull, they should be treated with kindness and respect all the same, and should be given extra help and care. We WP:BITE way too many new editors, and need to provide a more welcoming environment to new folks. For me, I would say I was still a new editor until I had probably 1,000 edits and had been actively editing for several months. The period of "new" will vary for every editor. Hope that helps! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek sounds in general a reasonable answer, and I bet there are quite a few who find the more they know about pillars, policies, and guidelines the more they feel they don't know.

@Interstellarity ... one for you. How many edits have I made, how do I tell how many edits I have made, and could I reasonably be considered to be a new editor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 18:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, In your preferences, you can see how many edits you have made. I see you have over 10000 edits. That's more than me. I would consider you far from a new editor. Interstellarity (talk) 00:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, Djm-leighpark. You have 11,570 edits at the moment, 686 of them deleted, and an average of 4 edits per page touched. You have been editing since 2017-01-29. I wouldn't call you new, although there are many editoirs who ahve been editing longer and have larger edit counts. You are surely experienced enough to know that you ought to WP:SIGN discussion page edits, and how to do it, for example. There are several ways to check your own edit count. The most accurate is probably the counter at https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec/en.wikipedia.org but the one in your preferences (at Special:Preferences) is probably simpler. There are some others as well, but those two should be enough. Each gives slightly different results in my experience, but usually not different enough to matter. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@DES ... Thankyou for the reminder to sign. Unfortunately I will forget that sometimes. As you have pointed out most reasonable people would determine I am far from being a new editor, but as my omission to sign shows I am far from perfect. Thus to be labelled a new editor on one's talk page and invited to discuss my feelings about that experience at the Teahouse perhaps might be felt to be inappropriate might it not? If I misjudge an article as demonstrating sufficient notability for mainspace that is one thing and in my making a less than perfect and considered answer to a question and another ... but for AfC reviewers to then start telling me: If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! is somewhat mind boggling! Can me a plonker for lots of stuff if you like but condescending insults like that is unlikely to have a positive effect on my mood! Unbelievable! Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

As you should realize, Djm-leighpark, the wording you complain of is boilerplate, produced by a template , placed by a script, on the assumption that an editor who is using the AfC process and getting a submission declined is probably relatively new -- that assumption is valid in the vast majority of cases. I am sure that Theroadislong intended no condescension or insult. Please assume good faith on this matter. Your contributions are welcome, as are those of all well-intentioned editors, new or highly experienced. I m sure you know this, but it can be hard to recall in an emotional moment. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:AGF I'm pretty sure it was unintentional on Theroadislong's part. But something is wrong ... either the template was wrongly applied, or it should be modified to assess an edit count, or it should simply have the words like yourself removed (or perhaps changed). As it is that template seems like a complete ~~redacted~~. In all events Draft:ThePrint is even more tainted now than its salting would suggest: [1]. More positively Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation should likely be changed or perhaps it can be left as is to shame editors with a significant number of edits on their talk page. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I must say, Djm-leighpark that I for one do not see a Teahosue invite as a "badge of shame" in any sense. It is an attempt to offer help, possibly not needed in some cases. Nor do I see how the draft is tainted by the use of a template on the creator's talk page. I know that when I review a draft, I don't consider such things. I do consider past decline reasons, if any, but only to check if the issues have been dealt with since the decline (and if I agree with the previous reviewer, sometimes I don't). I agree that an edit count check might be a good idea, but I think that is not as trivial for a script to do as you might suppose, and it is a bit rare for an experienced editor to ask for an AfC review of a draft, so the script doesn't really cater for that. Perhaps it should. If you think the invite is disrespectful you are totally free to remove it from your talk page. I doubt anyone will check the page history for it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't use WP:AFC but for a WP:BLP (of which I've done less than a handful) and maybe in some other cases I may opt for WP:AFC as a second pair of eyes. This article in question had a salted target so requires admin assistance in some form; possibly a WP:DRV or perhaps contacting the salting admin Doc James per WP:RFUP procedure, but as the WP:REFUND of the rejected draft I had used as a startpoint after coming across the subject had gone via AfC that was a reasonable continued pathway especially as Nosebagbear's comments seem encouraging and addressable albeit in retrospect more attention should probably had been paid to his notability comment.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

... Of course one generally has respect for the WP:NPP and WP:AFC people but of course one trick is scummer by using an WP:AFC reviewer tool to leave the derisory comment Nah; attributions are fairly commonplace and block editing for over 12 hours [2] ... maybe the edits and dumping of sources by Winged Blades of Godric are justified but per RHaworth at User talk:RHaworth/2019 Apr 27#User:Vidyutblogger/sandbox/Vidyut Gore there is history of the slashing. Now with the totality of our interaction history there there is perhaps rightful cause to be WP:UNCIVIL to me but to misuse the tools to do so is likely inappropriate. While the message at Old revision of Draft:ThePrint helpfully points to Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer apart mainly from the fact I had a pretty bad experience over a WP:BLP last time I was there I see another gotcha taking that route ... so Theroadislong and others options of courses of action please ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 03:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC) Probably wrong place for this .... Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Tumhari maka bhosda

Madarchod k bcho — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharmamulla (talk • contribs) 22:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Dharmamulla, This is the English language Wikipedia, if you are not familiar with English you may wish to contribute to your native language's Wikipedia instead.Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps Hindi Wikipedia? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Dharmadulla, you are using hindi swear words on a encyclopaedic site. Please remove thhis immediately.DrapalDragon (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I want to ask for help in creating a page

Hi guys,

  this is a request for information on how I can ask for a Wikipedia article to be created?
   Any help welcomed.
 Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by HunterGetsHunted (talk • contribs) 15:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

HunterGetsHunted Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You can go to Requested Articles to request that others write an article. Please understand that there is an extensive backlog there, and an article will probably not be written quickly. It will probably help if you indicate how the subject meets Wikipedia's special definition of notability and if there are independent reliable sources to support it. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

When Is Someone Gonna Work On 2019-20 North American Winter

I mean its not winter yet but there has been some winter storms already so.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ProGamerYT676 (talk • contribs)

ProGamerYT676 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, where people do what they can, when they can, with the information that they have available. If there are certain edits you think should be made, you can either make them yourself, or post on the article talk page to discuss any proposed changes you feel are needed. 331dot (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Same Name but Different Person

Hi Everyone!

Greetings! Please help me on this one, newbie here. This person has the same name of the biography I want to write: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Avery What action should I take if I want to create a new biography with the same name as his but different content since it's not the same person? Problem is his wiki page appears when you search on the name Ryan Avery, which confuse people because he is not the one written on the wiki page. And he is more known than him.

Should I just edit the singer's content? I'm afraid I will violate Wiki policies if I do that or the person will report me. Or should I just create a new page about the speaker Ryan Avery?

Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azumi121 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Azumi121 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If the person you want to write about meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person(or the more specific criteria for certain careers), and you have independent reliable sources with significant coverage about the person, you can use Articles for Creation to create and submit a draft for review by another editor; if it is accepted, the reviewer can handle differentiating your draft from the existing article; that will be done by adding a disambiguation to the title(such as "Ryan Avery (politician)", for example). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If, once your article is created, you want to argue that your article should have the "Ryan Avery" title and the other person have the disambiguation, you would probably need to start a formal Request for Comment to sort out who is more well known(or if they are equally known). 331dot (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that information. It helps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azumi121 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What should I expect next?

Hello TeaHouse, thanks for your time. I submitted an article yesterday for review/approval yesterday immediately after the article was not there. I checked back today only to see the article again with a button asking me to submit for review. Nothing was said about the article I submitted and I did not see any changes to it. Am curious about what I should do next. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikechukwu272 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ikechukwu272 Hello and welcome. I don't think you actually submitted the draft for review; you need to click that blue button on the draft and follow the instructions. If you were to do so now, however, I believe your draft would be rejected, as it reads as a very promotional piece for job websites in Nigeria. Wikipedia is not a how to guide or forum for merely providing information; this is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent reliable sources state about article subjects that meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability. I would suggest that you read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial before further editing and submitting your draft, so you better understand the process and what is being looked for. 331dot (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving from talk space to publish

Hello, Still trying to following along here. How does an article eventually move if the original editor is no longer involved? And who is the deciding factor after the time comes to an end? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Nichelle_Rodriguez#Draft%3ANichelle_Rodriguez — Preceding unsigned comment added by AKinderWorld (talk • contribs) 17:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

AKinderWorld If you are referring to the deletion discussion, an administrator will eventually make a determination and address the matter. 331dot (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

COI or no COI?

For my first article I am putting together an article about the National Herbarium of Guinea, an academic institution that my partner has involvement with (not employed by). Would this connection be enough to require I decalre a conflict of interest?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipikeia (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipikeia Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you are the one writing the article and your partner has no input on it at all, I don't think that's enough of a COI to need to declare. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipikeia. I would say that that depends on how cloely your partner is involved with Herbarium. If your partner was, say the director, or if it had been your partner's life work to get the Herbarium established, that would be a clear COI. Think of it this way. If you learned that someone was creating an article about, say the National Zoo of Guinea, and you learned that the author's partner was connected with the Zoo in exactly the same way that your partner is connected with the Herbarium , would you think that perhaps the author had been unconsciously biased because of the connection? Many people are, after all, unconsciously biased in favor of things that their spouses or partners are deply involved with. If you are seriously in doubt, it is better to disclose because then you cannot be accused of trying to hide the connection. If you disclsoe and stick to neutral writing in the article, there should be no problems. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

New editor

I received a notification and It took me to a "user talk" page where someone "messaged" me. Can someone please tell me what the page is and how can i reply? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 33sam33 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That's your user talk page, 33sam33. Click "edit" and respond--just like in article space. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello, 33sam33, and welcoem to the Teahouse. Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages for more about a user talk page and how it is used. I have placed a "Welcome" with a number of helpful links on your user talk page. Oh please in future sign comments on talk pages and on discussion pages like this (but never in articles) with four tildes (~~~~). The Wiki software will convert this into your signature (defualt or custom) and a timestamp. This helps in keeping track of who made what comment. Thank you and again welcome. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A rant towards wikipedia

hello. my name is bill. i have come to discuss controversy and how wikipedia users handle it. yesterday, i went on the article for extra credits, and there was zero mention of the recent controversy about their stop normalizing nazis video, despite how major the controversy was. and this is just 1 example. back in 2018, when the channel awesome controversy occured, instead of simply adding a section about it, someone just deleted the list of episodes, and the article for doug walker himself. all i'm asking is, when something like this happens, the articles should be updated to reflect it, not just have it ignored or have pages deleted. Bill cage (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you could tell us to which of Wikipedia's 5,965,325 articles you are referring (or which of five different Doug Walkers). The usual place to discuss article content would be the talk page of that article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Shantavira: As OP mentions a 'list of episodes' I'd guess he means Doug Walker (actor) (see history for "article removal"). --CiaPan (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS may have some helpful guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

to shantavira: was the mention of channel awesome not clear enough to figure which doug walker it was? also, maybe i'm misreading, but it somewhat seems like you're dodging my question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill cage (talk • contribs) 17:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

If you want people to know what article you are asking about, put double brackets [[ ]] to create a Wikilink: Channel Awesome. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't speak for Shantavira, but for me the mention of channel awesome was not clear. Not at all. Possibly, if you used capital letters, like Channel Awesome, or even better, capiltals with italics, like Channel Awesome, I would guess where to look to discover what you meant. But neglecting common rules of writing made your question hard to understand instead of fancy. --CiaPan (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

okay i understand, but will someone please adress the main topic of my question? Bill cage (talk) 12:55, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bill cage. I'm sorry you've had a runaround here (though for my part, I read your question, hadn't a clue what you were referring to, and left it for somebody else). But I'm afraid I'm going to give you more runaround: it's unlikely that snybody here is going to answer your question. The place to discuss it is on the article's talk page. -ColinFine (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Got the ping wrong. Bill cage -ColinFine (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Bill cage: As ColinFine said, you are more likely to get useful advice at the article talk pages, that is, Talk:Channel Awesome or Talk:Extra Credits. If it is not in the articles, it might just be because nobody thought to put it in.

However, be aware that in general it's hard to find reliable sourcing for "controversies" in Youtube communities - since most of it is unlikely to be picked up by newspapers or the like. And on Wikipedia we require those.

Finally, the title "a rant towards Wikipedia" is not a wise choice diplomatically speaking. I expected your post to be some variation of "you are biaised for/against politician X/random cause Y" (we get one every week or so at the Teahouse), and maybe some skipped it after reading the title alone, when actually your question/remark has decent potential to turn into an improvement of our articles. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

okay. thanks Bill cage (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

how long will it take from draft edition to formal edition

i have supported an item which is called "Zhang Yan", now it can be searched as "Draft: Zhang Yan"

so i want make sure about how long will it take to become the formal edition?

thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SheenaZhao (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

SheenaZhao Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Once you actually submit your draft for review, there is no set timeframe for the review to occur, as reviews are done in no particular order by volunteers. There is usually thousands of drafts waiting for review, and though it is possible it will be quick, it will most likely be several weeks and possibly months. 331dot (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Zhang Yan has not yet been submitted. There is a blue rectangle with submission instructions. It will be declined, as large sections of text have no references. Also, written in a promotional tone rather than a neutral point of view. As just one example, all of this has to be deleted:"Exposed to art when he was a little child, he was keen of poetry and painting and was diligent to learn knowledge. These traits not only helped make him a prudent and meticulous person, but also opened slowly a door of understanding Chinese culture and traditional Chinese painting. As an adolescent, when Mr. Zhang started to study syncretic painting, he has showed an extraordinary artistic talent. His parents were always kind and his family emphasized on education, accepted norms and family tradition, which made him not seek fame and official rank." David notMD (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Dynamo foundation

I don't know why draft page is not accepted. will you please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stockster2000 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Your Talk page has explanations as to why your draft was deleted. David notMD (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

First article - getting approved

Hi everyone, I wrote my first draft "Dial-A-Poem Montreal" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dial-A-Poem_Montreal in August but it has yet to be reviewed. I'm wondering if there's any way to speed up the review process or do I just have to wait? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuang726 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Chuang726, Hola y bienvenidos a la casa de té. Reviewers are done by volunteers that will take their time reviewing drafts. This makes some drafts reviewed sooner and others a while longer. Interstellarity (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

First time using Wikipedia

Hello comrades! My change to the webpage replacement value was removed, any reason why? It said it was promotional...I just explained what replacement cost is. Did I not cite my website properly? Should I not be citing at all? I am new to this, would appreciate feedback. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtis kbd (talk • contribs) 22:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Curtis kbd. In this pair of edits you aded some posisbly relevant text cited to

https://kbdinsurance.com

which is a commercial site, and apparently one you are connected with. That is a promotional edit, and as such was reverted promptly. If you really want to add an explanation of replacement value for autos to that articel, find a site other than your own, preferably a non-commercial site that is also a reliable source. Give the recent revistion, please propose such a change on Talk:Replacement value first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines for creating article on prominent family

Hi! I recently have been improving the article on Mary van Kleeck, and found that she was the granddaughter of Charles F. Mayer, a Baltimore lawyer and politician on whom we already had a page. I found, in fact, that we have pages on six members of the Mayer family (including one I just created):

Charles F. Mayer
His brother, Brantz Mayer
His nephew, also Charles F. Mayer
His son, Francis Blackwell Mayer
His other son, Alfred M. Mayer
And his granddaughter, Mary van Kleeck

Given this, would it be worthwhile to create a page for the family? Or should I just create a new category for them? Are their guidelines covering the creation of these sorts of "group" pages? I know we have a few relevant categories (Category:Families from Maryland but I want to make sure I'm not blundering about when there might be a relevant WikiProject or guide I can work through. Thank you for the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Your question tried to put this Teahouse page into the category, but I've put a colon in front of the category name to provide a link instead of putting the page into the category. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, thank you! Ganesha811 (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Ganesha811 such pages are sometimes created about families, but only when there are several reliable sources that discuss the family as a family thus making the the family itself notable, not merely its individual members, just as a business or organization might be notable. Such articles are not very common, in my experience, but Wikipedia does have some. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, makes sense. So, in that case, the correct course would be to create a new category for the family and categorize accordingly? Thank you for the help! Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia fortnite

Hello, this is by far not my speciality, but my brother brought to me the wikipedia page of fortnite that seemed to have been vandalized. I do not know how to report vandalism, so that is why I am putting it here.

The content has been fixed, thanks for letting us know! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Deployable Operations Group

Hello Wikiusers

There is a section in Deployable Operations Group, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployable_Operations_Group, under (MSRT) thats states their are acronyms that may be confusing to others, as an editor and someone who knows these acronyms, can I replace it with the full word instead; and parenthesis the acronym next to it?

Thank you! Zacharysoto96 (talk) 00:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Zacharysoto96, yes, that would be a good idea. If there are articles about the fully-spelled out version, then it would be good to make them into wikilinks. You can even link the names (or acronyms, if they are more well-known by the acronym than the name), even if there isn't an article about it; this will create a red link, but red links can encourage someone to create a new article. If it is very likely that a term has sufficient notability or sufficient sources that someone someday could write an article about it, then it's probably worth making it a red link; otherwise, not. Mathglot (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating a new page

Greetings! I joined Wikipedia, last sunnier. for a class assignment at Georgia State University. I am hoping to create another Wikipedia page for a different class. How do I go about creating a new Wikipedia page? Is there a different training or set of requirement outside of what I trained for via GSU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Obie Njoku and welcome to ther Teahouse. Creating an article from a blank start is one of the harder tasks here at Wikipedia, and it is often better to edit existing pages for a while fist. But here are some stapes that, when followed, often lead to success.

First, review our guideline on notability, our policy on Verifiability, and our general notability guideline (GNG). Consider whether your subject clearly meets the standards listed there.
Second, read how to create Your First Article and referencing for beginners and again consider if you want to go ahead.
Third, If you have any connection or affiliation with the subject, disclose it in accordance with our guideline on Conflict of interest. If you have been or expect to be paid for making edits, or are making them as part of your job, disclose this according to the strict rules of the Paid-contribution disclosure. This is absolutely required; omitting it can result in you being blocked from further editing.
Fourth, gather sources. You want independent, professionally published, reliable sources with each discussing the subject in some detail. If you can't find several such sources, stop; an article will not be created! Sources do NOT need to be online, or in English, although it is helpful if at least some are. The "independent" part is vital. Wikipedia does not consider as independent sources such as press releases, or news stories based on press releases, or anything published by the subject itself or an affiliate of the subject. Strictly local coverage is also not preferred. Regional or national newspapers or magazines, books published by mainstream publishers (not self-published), or scholarly journals are usually good. So are online equivalents of these. (Additional sources may verify particular statements but not discuss the subject in detail. But those significant detailed sources are needed first.)
Fifth, use the article wizard to create a draft under the articles for creation project. This is always a good idea for an inexperienced editor, but in the case of an editor with a conflict of interest it is essential.
Sixth, use the sources gathered before (and other sources you may find along the way) to write the article. Cite all significant statements to sources. Do not express opinions or judgements, unless they are explicitly attributed to named people or entities, preferably in a direct quotation, and cited to a source. Do not use puffery or marketing-speak. Provide page numbers, dates, authors and titles for sources to the extent these are available. A title is always needed.
Seventh, when (well perhaps if) your draft is declined, pay attention to the comments of the reviewer, and correct the draft and resubmit it. During this whole process, if you face any unresolvable editing hurdles, or cannot comprehend any editing issue, feel free to post a request at the Teahouse or the help desk and ask the regulars. Repeat this until the draft passes review.

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

However, the wait for an AfC review between steps six and seven can be several weeks or more. If your instructor can arrange for an experienced Wikipedia editor to do such reviews on a more expedited basis, that will help. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Obie Njoku, and welcome to the Teahouse. First, pick a topic that satisfies the criteria at WP:GNG, the more easily the better. Then, move on to Help:Your first article wich has guidance on how to create a draft and submit it for approval. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Obie Njoku: See WP:Creating a new page. Mathglot (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Obie Njoku, I agree with DESiegel's steps above, but please add a new step "0" at the top:

Please make sure that the article doesn't already exist. You will waste a lot of time, if you create a new article, and then find that the encyclopedia already has an article about that, possibly under a different spelling (especially if it's about a foreign person or topic), or is treated as a section in an existing page with a different article title.

If you disclose your topic here, other editors can help you determine if the topic already has an article about it. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Mathglot I will add that to the template that produces the above. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 03:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, didn't realize it was template-generated. Can you please add a hidden text identifier string including the Template name, in the generated text, in the way that user warning and welcome templates such as {{Uw-unsourced1}} or {{Welcome}} do? Also, there's more I would add to the boilerplate about "step 0" in a template, that I didn't add here, because there are so many helpful editors here to help out the questioner. But if you want to discuss possible wording, please point me to the Template talk page, or we can discuss at your page or mine, if you wish. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The last period in the text links to the template, as can be seen in the wiki-source, Mathglot. This also enable finding uses via the link. I could also add an HTML comment, do you think that is also wanted? I am also a bit reluctant to add too much text. But this could be discussed at Template talk:Steps to Article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am trying to crate an article for "World Igbo Congress." World Igbo Congress or WIC is socio-cultural organization that represents the interests of Igbo people of southeastern Nigeria. I am aware that the there is no article yet about the group. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obie Njoku (talk • contribs) 04:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Obie Njoku. Your subject is notable. I was able to find several scholarly sources (mainly books) that can be used besides the news reports you can find on the web. Let me know if you need the details of these sources so I can give them to you. Good luck. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Publish after one/all edits?

Hello Teahouse! Let's say an article needs different types of corrections - references, wikilinks, new information etc. When do I save the edits? After every one of them, or after every type, or maybe after everything is done? I've been doing both but I wanted to know which is considered more correct. Thank you --Less Unless (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for working to improve it. It is usually better to make several small edits instead of one big edit. This makes it easier to see what has changed each time and if one of the small edits has an error it is easier to spot it, and if the edit needs to be undone then only one small part can be undone instead of undoing everything. RudolfRed (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RudolfRed Thank you! Does this also apply to creating articles via draft? --Less Unless (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Smaller edits are always better and easier to manage. -- Alexf^(talk) 21:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That is a matter of working style, Less Unless. I prefer small edits myself, but when creating a draft, some prefer to work offline and save a more complete text in the initial edit, and if creating a new article not in a draft (which i do not advise) a large initial edit may be essential to avoid a speedy deletion tag from a new page patroller on a partly completed page not yse constituting a valid article. Ther is no rulke against large edits, but if you make ne to an existing articel, it is a very good idea to explain what you are doing in boith the edit summary, and on the talk page, and even so, makign smaller incremental edits is often better practice. It allows discussion of your changes one npiece at a time, if anyone objects to them, DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Less Unless: Smaller edits, yes, within reason. While there is really no right or wrong, a bunch of separate saves for each spelling or grammar fix would be annoying for others to review. I like to try to group together similar types of changes in one save. For example, if I'm going to do some copyediting to one paragraph, re-arrange a table, and fix some minor grammar, that would be three saves, with the grammar one marked as "minor". If you put it all together, you run the risk of a less-than-careful editor reverting the whole thing if they don't like one small part of it (which isn't right, but it happens, so ...). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 02:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this issue is a matter of working style. Personally, I prefer big edits because the changes you made were all highlighted anyway when you compare it with its older version. If you choose to do big edits, you might want to check them first with grammar checking applications (e.g. Grammarly) to spot mistakes before saving. Darwin Naz (talk) 01:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep bullet points in the 'normal' Wikipedia font, but indent more.

I added a pic to the left of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Forbes under 'Climbing routes', but the indented bullet points almost abutted the photo, so I tried adding spaces which worked to get the points more to the right, but changed the font and changed the bullets to '*'s. I Googled 'wiki bullet' and scanned that page and Googled 'wiki indent bullet', but neither seem to address my issue (unless I scanned to quickly). How can I keep the font standard and indent more, please? BrettA343 (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, BrettA343. The MediaWiki software converts asterisks to HTML unnumberd list items (bullets, actually <li>...</li> inside <ul>...</ul>), but only when they come at the start of a line, with nothing but other asterisks or colons in front of them. To do what you want would, I think require he use of custom HTML and CSS code, and if done, should be checked on multiple devices and resolutions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@BrettA343: This is a long-lasting problem with wiki formatting. Possible work-around: shift the image to the right and let the bulleted list to fill the left part of the page. --CiaPan (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, DESiegel (and CiaPan). Bummer. So as the WP expert(s) here, would you keep the font and bullets almost abutting the photo (not ideal), indent but have the font changed and use asterisks (also not ideal) or shift the image to the right which I think would look ugly, abutting the info box (again, not ideal, IMHO)? Or is it just my choice (in which case I'll keep it as is)? BrettA343 (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

BrettA343, I have limited experience with articles that have such a high ratio of images to text. I would probably play safe by using a gallery at the bottom of the articel, but I am not sure that is the beast solution. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

DESiegel, I've been using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Robson as a bit of a guide for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Forbes layout and was comfortable with the text to image ratio (they lined up at roughly the same place at the bottom of the article), but are you suggesting I'm too heavy on the photos? I want the climbing image under 'Climbing routes' and have been thinking of a small shots-from-the-summit gallery (we had great weather; not always the case). BrettA343 (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Uploading media: screenshot copyright

There is a screenshot in Wipeout 3 If I would like to publish a screenshot of a video game, should I make the copyright option an original work (own work) as I took the screenshot myself, or should I make it not an original work? If it should NOT be an original work, how should I publish it so it wouldn't violate copyrights? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 03:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bank Robbery: if you designed the video game, you can claim that it is original work. Otherwise, I would check the game's license, to see if it is compatible with wikipedia. It probably won't be though, so I suggest reviewing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria to see if using the screenshot would qualify as "fair use" --DannyS712 (talk) 03:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Bank Robbery. A screenshot is a derivitive work, and the original copyright is almost certainly held by the company that developed or owns the marketing rights to the game. You should never claim a common screenshot as your own "original work" because your creative input was negligible. The "work" was created by the videogame company. DannyS712 is correct. Any such upload must comply with WP:NFCI in all details. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:@Cullen328: Thank you for your help. The image I wanted to upload is a screenshot from Hungry Shark World. Is there an official page for Hungry Shark World, or do I need to upload it on to the page Hungry Shark directly instead? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: I also have a problem. How can I find the copyright information about the game? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 11:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Don’t really understand what you mean. Actually, I am asking which license should I use (like CC Public Domain 3.0 (I don’t really know the name of the license)). -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 00:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

And Cullen328 is telling you, Bank Robbery, that there is no licence that you can use, because you are not permitted to upload such a picture to which you do not own the copyright, unless the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a free licence, or unless your use complies with all the terms in the non-free content criteria; in the latter case you upload it as non-free, and don't specify a licence. --ColinFine (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, you cannot arbitrarily assign a free licence to an image that is copyrighted by someone else. That would be illegal, immoral and quite ridiculous. Copyrights are equivalent to property. The rights to images that you did not create are not your property. Those rights belong to other people. The only possible acceptable uses of copyrighted images are described quite clearly in WP:NFCI and no other use is permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Is there any way for me to not specify a license? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 10:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Bank Robbery, you must provide a rationale (not a license) that complies with WP:NFCI in every way. Read that very carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Even I have read WP:NFCI for two times, I still do not understand how to upload a photo without a license. Can you give me the steps? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 10:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Bank Robbery. All files uploaded to Wikipedia are required to have two things: (1) a copyright license and (2) information about the file's source; so, no you cannot upload a file without a copyright license and any such file will be tagged (most likely quite quickly) for speedy deletion per speedy deletion criteria F4. If you're uploading a non-free file which seems to be what you're asking about, you will also need to provide a non-free use rationale for each use of the file and explain how each use of the file satisfies all ten non-free content use criteria explained here; if a use is judged to fail even one of these criteria, the file will be removed or deleted. If you're not sure whether the screenshot you want to upload will satisfy all ten of these criteria, you might want to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games since the members of that WikiProject may be able to help you figure this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Marchjuly, the WikiProject Page doesn’t seem to help me much. I want the steps instead. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

There are no steps or short-cuts listed other than those listed on relevant Wikipedia pages. If you want someone else to try and upload the file for you, you can try asking for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. If you're trying to upload a screenshot of some video game that you don't own the copyright on, you will need to uploaded it as non-free content. In that case, you will need to provide a non-free use rationale and a non-free copyright license. For video game screenshots, Template:Non-free video game screenshot is generally used for the license, and Template:Non-free use rationale video game screenshot is generally used for the non-free use rationale. If you're not sure whether the screenshot you want to upload and use satisfies Wikipedia's non-free content use policy, please ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video Games or Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Marchjuly, as I have read a project article about uploading files on Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons. I forgot the page for the Wikipedia file uploading, so can you please tell me the page and how to use the template you have mentioned above? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 09:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what Wikipedia page you're referring to. Perhaps try looking at Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Image dos and don'ts, Wikipedia:How to upload a photo or Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. As for how to use non-free use rationale, you basically add it to the file's page and complete the parameters as explained in the template's documentation; for the copyright license template, you just need to add the template as is since there are no parameters to complete. You can practice doing both of these things in your user sandbox.

I get that uploading files can be tricky, especially for new editors. However, every time someone points you to a page where you can find more specific information or suggests a page where you can ask for more help, your responses are basically always along the lines of "I still don't understand" or "Please tell me how". I suggested that you ask for help with this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video Games since that's a good place to ask about video game screenshots, but you haven't seemed to have tried that yet. There are only so many ways to explain something and I'm not sure how to try and explain this to you any better or any differently than I already have. Your account is only about a week old so nobody is expecting you to know everything there is to know about Wikipedia, but perhaps you'd might be better off focusing on other things instead of uploading images so as to get a better feel for editing and other things Wikipedia. Maybe with a little more experience under your belt, you'll be better able to understand how to do things like uploading a file and then adding it to a page work. If at that time you still can't figure things out, you can always request that someone else upload the file for you at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: I think you've just given me the page name. WP:File Upload Wizard. -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Even I have found the page, I cannot start uploading. Why? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 23:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't know why you're now having problems with the Upload Wizard. It could be you're doing something incorrectly or it could be a problem that has nothing to do with you. You might be better of asking for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) because that's where those who are really familiar with the technical aspects of Wikipedia tend to hang out. Just explain exactly what you're trying to do and where you're having the problem. It might be easier for someone at the Village Pump to figure out why you're having problems if you list everything you're doing in the order that you're doing it; for example, I did "X" first, then I did "Y" and finally I did "Z". -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Village Pump? X? Y? Z? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) is a page, like the Teahouse, where you can ask questions only it tends to be a place to ask more technical questions about how or why the Wikipedia software is doing (or not doing) a certain thing; so, if you're have technical problems using the Upload Wizard page, then perhaps someone at the Village Pump can help figure out why.

"X", "Y", "Z" where just generic terms I used since I don't know exactly what problem you're having and what you're doing that's leading to the problem. If you ask for help at the Village Pump, it will probably be much easier for someone to help you if you're able to describe exactly what problem you're having and what things you're doing. If you just say something like "I can't start uploading", then there's pretty much no way anyone is going to be able to help you because they won't have any idea what the problem is. So, you need to describe it in as much detail as possible and the best place to do that type of thing is at the Village Pump. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: If I don't want to use WP:File Upload Wizard, how can I specific a rationale on Wikimedia Commons Upload Wizard? -- Bank: Bank Robbery started a robbery (notify) 03:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons doesn't accept fair use content (i.e. non-free content) of any kind as explained in c:Commons:Fair use; so, if you try to upload any such content to Commons, it will be tagged for deletion (most likely fairly quickly). If you want to know some more information about Commons and screenshots, please read c:Commons:Licensing and c:Commons:Screenshots. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Draft:The Leylines" Submission Declined

Hi, I created a Wikipedia page for a band that I know and the submission was recently declined. The reason is that there are not enough references to the band's notability. Having looked through the criteria for notability of musical artists, I have supplied references from news articles and independent sources. I have been using the band's current peers (other band's in the same genre, including bands that usually play alongside this band) as a baseline of content and referencing. Is there something else I'm missing?

Draft link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Leylines

I would be grateful for any advice, if possible. NickMcLeod1980 (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there!

From the looks of things, I'd say your article was declined as most of the references are just listings of where the band is playing. I don't edit music articles, and they're not my specialty, so I could be wrong, but references for musicians and bands have to be more than festival listings. Take, for example, a look at the references for The 1975 - most of them are news articles about their new releases, interviews with the band's members, etc.

The references that link to festival listings are great for inline citations on where and when they've played - but to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and the good referencing criteria, we'd need more references like the ones I've talked about above. Again, I don't edit music articles, so this isn't as specific a feedback as you'd probably like, but I think I'm in the right ballpark.

Other than that - the writing in the article is good quality. I would suggest you include more in-line citations on the 'History' section using WP:REFNAME - this means you can use a citation more than once to back up what you're saying. It's not recommended you stuff your article full of the same source over and over, but you won't be taken out and shot for using the same reference twice where it's relevant!

I'd also recommend copy-editing the 'History' section to be a little shorter; could some of the information go into other headings? And, as per the guidelines for articles on bands, the 'associated acts' section has to be acts that have collaborated with the band on more than one occasion and/or song.

I hope this helps! If you can find some good references of reviewers talking about the band and add those in, I see no reason why this article couldn't pass the draft stage. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, that is very helpful. I will revise it and see how it goes NickMcLeod1980 (talk) 06:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

November Contributions

Hi I would like to contribute 4 or more articles to Wikipedia so that I can be a part of the contest in the month of November. How should I decide on what topic to write and are there any submission guidelines (font, word limit, etc.)? Please help as I want to get started writing.

Thank you Navodita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navoditapande1980 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Navoditapande1980 Greetings. Pls check out this link [3] for more info and Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red where it lists /suggests of needed topics. Please also read WP:Your First Article and referencing on how to write an article and provide referencing in Wikipedia. Best. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:RA has lists of articles that other user's are requesting to be written. RudolfRed (talk) 05:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Creating new articles is one of the most difficult tasks for new editors. While your enthusiasm is welcome, cautious advice suggests you become familiar with Wikipedia by improving existing articles for a while before attempting a new article. References are an absolute requirement. Also, 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 10:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Etiquette around creating articles?

Last night I wrote an article about a book I enjoyed recently, and I followed what I thought was the right etiquette for making a new article. I used a wizard to make a "Draft", and then, when I thought it was in good shape, marked it for review. It's currently in the category "Pending AfC submissions." That was so much fun that then I went to the Women in Red Project and found someone interesting and put together a rough article about her. When I finished, I realised that it wasn't a "Draft" but an actual real article in Wikipedia (which is how I learned that I am an "autoconfirmed" user). On looking more closely, it looks like the AfC review process exists largely to allow non-confirmed users to still contribute pages. Since I can create pages, am I cluttering up the review process by posting an article there? Can/should I move my own "Draft" article to the main namespace? Or, does it go the other direction, should my second article be reviewed too? Of the two, I think my first one is better than my second one... I couldn't find any English-language sources about Marion du Faouët and I got tired of reading French. Thank you for the advice! Oulfis (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: the draft is Draft:Daughters of the Samurai: A Journey from East to West and Back. The article is Marion du Faouët. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Oulfis: Submitting a draft to WP:AFC isn't mandatory, and it's OK to be WP:BOLD and create a draft and then move the draft to the WP:MAINSPACE yourself instead. What AFC does is give other editors a chance to review and assess the draft for Wikipedia notability and other issues; since AFC reviews tend to be experienced editors who have a pretty good grasp of relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this can be helpful to editors who are new or haven't otherwise had lots of experience (successful experience) creating articles. Articles approved by AFC reviewers tend to satisfy Wikipedia's most basic notability guidelines; so, even though they're not perfect, they seem to be less likely to be immediately tagged or nominated for deletion. Of course, even being accepted via AFC isn't a 100% guarantee and individual reviewers might look at the same draft and see two different things, but for the most part drafts approved via AFC do seem to have a bit more of a chance of surviving as an article. If you feel comfortable enough creating articles and feel you've got a good grasp of Wikipedia notability and other relevant policies and guidelines, then you can basically act as your own AFC reviewer and move your drafts to the mainspace yourself. However, you need to understand that once something is added to the mainspace, it's pretty much there for anyone anywhere in the world to edit at anytime and you don't have any special editorial control of an article's content just because you created the article; this means that another editor can tag or nominate the article for deletion if they feel it's not something which meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines or has other problems that are too serious to be fixed.

Articles created without AFC still may be subject to some kind of review by Wikipedia:New pages patrol which is sort of a post-creation review process, but I believe editors who have established a track-record of creating acceptable articles may be exempted from these reviews since the WP:COMMUNITY has confidence in their ability not to create articles that need to be deleted. At the same time, editors who have continuously created poor articles that have been deleted, may find the community to be less willing to give them the benefit of doubt and may be "required" to submit drafts to AFC for review until they can demonstrate they know what they're doing. Same goes for WP:COI or WP:PAID editors where the community feels an AFC review is too the benefit of Wikipedia to ensure inappropriate articles aren't being created. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Thank you so much for this detailed reply! It is very helpful to know that I am not being rude if I create articles on my own, as long as I am confident that I'm following Wikipedia policies. My draft article was approved, which makes me feel good that I am on the right track. I will keep the AFC process in mind if I'm ever unsure about an article, but otherwise will try to be WP:BOLD! ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Oulfis, Personally, I advise using a draft, whether you submit it to AfC or not. I am a fairly experienced editor (over 40,000 edits), and I always start new articles as drafts, and move them into mainspace when I think they are ready, although I do not ask for an AfC review. This is because I cannot create a reasonable quality article in a single edit, and once an article is in the main article space, it is expected to comply with a number of policies right away.

New articles are sometimes tagged for speedy deletion within minutes of begin created, and may possibly be deleted soon after. If the article does not indicate the significance of the topic, in some cases WP:CSD#A7 (or A9 or A11) may apply. So may some other of the speedy deletion criteria. Even if there is no risk of deletion, putting an article into main space says that it is ready for Wikipedia's readers to see. At least when I create an article this is not true on my first few edits.

You are free to create directly in mainspace if you choose, but there are benefits to using a draft, or a user-space draft. Note that any autoconfirmed user can move a page from draft (or user) space to the main article space, unless it would overwrite an existing article, or has been move-protected. Both cases are rare for new drafts.

Have a look at the early versions of Judy Sullivan, which I created in draft space on 8 October 20-19, but was not moved to the main article space until 16 October.

All this is merely advice, you are in no way obliged to follow it, of course. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 04:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Oulfis: Although it is not mandatory, in general, I would strongly advise to go through WP:AFC for your first couple of articles, until you get the hang of things, most importantly the fairly arcane "notability" rule and sourcing requirements. An AfC reviewer declining a draft and giving improvements idea is much less resource intensive than a new page patroller having to look around the internet for sources, sending the article through the deletion process where a few editors would weigh in, and then restarting as a draft all over again. Finally, AfC reviewers are here to review articles, so it's not bad etiquette to send something to them!

That being said, looking at Marion du Faouët, I think the advice does not apply to you specifically. Unless you got extremely lucky, you seem to have a good understanding of those already. Keep up the good job! Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel:, @Tigraan:, thank you both for the additional advice! I will work on future articles as drafts in my userspace... it will be nice to be able to save my work :) (I was copying it into a plaintext file to edit as I worked before it went live, but of course there is a better way!) And, I'm glad the notability and sourcing look ok to you on Marion du Faouët, Tigraan. I think it would be better if I could find more sources in English -- she might not be notable outside France? But she seems interesting enough that I am glad to have learned about her! Being an academic, I feel solid on following Wikipedia's policies for sources and citation... I just have to always watch myself for WP:NOR!

@Oulfis: You forgot to sign your post and as a consequence the pings to DESiegel and myself did not go through. See WP:PINGFIX (especially the first sentence) for an explanation.

About non-English sources, see WP:NONENG: English sources are preferred when possible but not mandatory. Other editors may ask for a direct quote and translation from the source if something is unclear. If it was up to me, a reference to anything longer than a newspaper article should always be made specific (page or chapter number or direct quote). Recent personal anecdote: I was reading an otherwise fine report that quoted some number from a 1100-page textbook without caring to say the page or chapter, and since that number was a crucial part of why I was reading said report, I was not happy.

Notability rules are different on English-Wikipedia and in other Wikipedias, but notability is not a matter of locality. In practice there are two effects though:

Systemic bias due to editor demographics, so that we are more likely to miss an article about a member of the Sejm than one of the House of Commons, even if both are (usually) notable; we strive to eliminate that one;
The availability of reliable sources limits the topics we can cover. That can skew coverage in multiple ways: men are more likely than women to have been written about in (almost?) all societies before the 20th century; wide-circulation uncensored journalism appeared in Europe in the late 18th century, but China has pretty much never seen it; etc. That is not something we can do much about, even though it means copying the biases of the past.

Academics usually have an easier time starting on Wikipedia, for a couple of reasons: the practice of writing text without passion and citing sources is relatively similar; they have some specialized knowledge that is useful to the project (pages of contemporary American politicians need little editing, unlike those of 18th century Breton bandits); and the ideology usually aligns (most academics view their job as increasing the sum of human knowledge, and Wikipedia editors as disseminating said knowledge, which is complementary, even if within both groups considerable differences of political opinions exist). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 14:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Time for a page to seen on google when searched

Hi so I had made a wiki page on 4th October last month. So I wanted to know long does it take for the wiki page to go live and also I needed help with the various errors. Thanks

Link for the page: Namah Pictures — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinThomas71293 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

New articles are NOINDEXed until either they have been reviewed through the new page patrol process or 90 days have expired. Concerning the issues that have been raised, the words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

New contribution

When and how is a new contribution approved or not, and hopefully appears in the offerings? The process is all very complex and one is left not knowing what happened to a contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas A. Regelski (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas A. Regelski: It appears that you have a response to your posting at Talk:Action learning. You can discuss your proposed changes with the other editor(s) until a consensus is arrived at about what changes to make, if any. After that, anyone can make the agreed-upon changes. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Help on a new article.

I recently created a new article titled MyKey (musician). I'm a relatively new editor so my question is whether I can ask for help on it. What I mean is help on things like possibly correcting spelling or grammer mistakes or correct some formatting issues. I think the page might need some other types of improving but I would like input or help with possible mistakes.SlackingViceroy (talk) 19:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC) SlackingViceroy

Nice work on the article! I corrected some minor issues with formatting and grammar. Overall, it seems like you have a good grasp on how to write an article and cite your sources. The biggest issue with this article, though, is that I'm not sure if the current sources are enough to demonstrate notability. Self-published sites like a musician's Bandcamp profile don't show that a subject is notable, since anyone can create a profile about themselves; neither do product listings on Amazon, or interviews, in most cases. To prove that he's notable you'd want to look for detailed music reviews or biographical articles from major publications or websites. Wikipedia's notability guidelines can be hard to understand, so don't feel bad about this. There is a specific notability guideline for musicians, which you can read here: WP:NMUSIC. Hope this helps. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! The article is shaping up, but its not quite there yet. I have moved it into the "Draft" space (as Draft:MyKey (musician)) until more sources are found. Bandcamp is not a suitable source I'm afraid. What you need is media coverage. Interviews are usually not sufficient either. The rule of thumb is significant coverage in at least 3 reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Once the article has been cleaned up, a reviewer from AfC will come along and approve it. Alternatively, you can just drop a note on my talk page asking me to look at it again. Smooth sailing, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources is a good place to learn what sources are considered reliable (and unreliable) for music-related topics. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

PING!

How do I ping someone? Jtarvin (talk). 4:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: You can ping someone like this: {{ping|user pinged}}. Hope this helps --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: See the {{Ping}} documentation for some more information and caveats. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jtarvin: You can also do {{Hidden ping|user pinged}} for the ping to not to show up in the text. Dibbydib ^💬/_✏ 00:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Jtarvin there are other methods besides {{ping}}, including {{U}} and a direct wiki-link to the user page of the recipient. See Help:Notifications for an overview of the whole system. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

That’s good advice, but do I put the ping in my talk page or the other guy’s talk page? Jtarvin (talk). 10:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

If you leave a note on the other person's talk page, they will get a notification anyway, you don't need to link to them, Jtarvin. This would be appropriate if you are initiating new contact (and was the only option before the "Echo" notification system was created). Some people consider it rude being "summoned" to your place, it's more polite to "go visit theirs". On the other hand, if there is already discussion somewhere and you would like to inform somebody who's not yet involved, it's sufficient to ping them from there. Personally I don't feel that to be rude, but if somebody says "stop pinging me about this", then I try to remember to respect their wishes. Hope that helps! Pelagic (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

How can I change a title ie "Dlemiti primary school " to "Dhlemiti primary school" .I ommitted "h".

May you please assist on above headingJ Zvinongoza 13:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza (talk • contribs)

@Jotham Mapenhure Zvinongoza:

I have changed the title per your request. Interstellarity (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

More information on Wikipedia IFTTT action?

Is there somewhere I can get help for the IFTTT actions for Wikipedia? I'm guessing that I should be discussing this at WP:VPT, although I could be correct in coming here. Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Mac_Henni What kind of actions are you thinking about? Wikipedia already has a notifications system that will notify you when articles you are interested in (i.e., the ones on your WP:WATCHLIST) are modified, or when someone ping you, or links your username on a talk page somewhere. There are also Alerts. Were you thinking about other kinds of actions? Can you be more specific? Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I'm not talking about notifications within Wikipedia. I'm talking about if this then that actions, where you can, say, have all the articles edited by yourself sent to you as email. Sorry for the confusion.

I guess my question is, then, can I omit the underlines that are replaced with spaces within WP when I'm not physically in WP? Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 02:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Mac Henni. I know nothing of IFTTT (I'd never heard of it before). But unless it has special knowledge of Wikipedia syntax, it must be using URLs, and those need all the underscores. It's only the Mediawiki software which can cope with spaces and replace them with underscores when it generates URLs. --ColinFine (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Re:Manorama Actress

Hi,

Aachi Manorama acted in Various Tamil TV channels in the serials. It is nissing in the Wikipedia.

Thanks Annamika— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.18.176 (talk)

@69.122.18.176: Please sign your posts. The article exists, found here. Her stage name is used. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 23:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

correct channel to warn user operating in bad faith?

Hi All,

There is a user who continually winds back my edits but provieds no justification for it, and I beleive they are operating in bad faith. I may be wrong, but they provide no justification for the reversions. I'm aware of these warning templates (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Uw-delete2), but how/where do I actually use them? Cresscoriander (talk) 22:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Cresscoriander, The best thing to do is to ask the user on their talk page to explain why they reverted the edits. They may be acting in good faith. Interstellarity (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is about Sustainable Australia, it would be good to start a discussion on the article's talk page about why you believe the content should be included. That way, you can work with other users to reach a consensus. Wikipedia has an essay on this process: Bold, revert, discuss. Basically, it's okay to edit an article without prior discussion, but if someone reverts you, you should get consensus for your changes first. You shouldn't revert back to your own version repeatedly, as this is considered edit warring, and edit warring is wrong even if you are right. I don't think that user is acting in bad faith, although they should have provided an edit summary when reverting. Hopefully by starting a discussion you'll be able to reach a compromise. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cresscoriander,, such disputes should normally be discussed on the article's talk page. In this case, see Talk:Sustainable Australia#Edit war, where I have asked both you and The Drover's Wife to address the matter. Also, please do not delete other people's comments from talk pages unless they constitute clear and serious personal attacks or outing, and then get an admin involved, please. See WP:TPO for mor eon the limits of such editing. Interstellarity unless the dispute extends over several different articles, an article talk page is usually the best place to address such reverts, because other intereted editors may wish to express views on a content dispute. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC) @The Drover's Wife: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you also asked about the use of templated warnings: you can use these templates by adding {{subst:uw-delete2}} ~~~~ on their talk page, but you should really only use those templates for dealing with new users. The Drover's Wife is an experienced user so it's best to just write a regular note to them on their talk page, or to start a discussion on the article's talk page. But you're correct that users are expected to give an explanation in the edit summary when reverting other people's good faith edits. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Note that WP:DTR does not commend universal support, see User:DESiegel/Template the regulars which I really should polish up and move back into project space one of these days. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The time! Gimme the time!

Hello guys.

I'm not entirely new there but I'm still learning. Step by step.

My question for today is : how can we fix the time of the edit history on Wikipedia? Because I'm very confused when it says that I've undone edits at 21:03 when it's only 6pm where I live. And for that I'd like to change it, if it's possible.

Thank you for any your answers.

Regards. BetterOfThatWay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@BetterOfThatWay: All of the times on Wikipedia, by default, are in UTC. You can change it in your preferences. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

BetterOfThatWay, You can change the signatures to show your local time. To do this, in your preferences, go to Gadgets and check Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time (documentation). Interstellarity (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Make sure in your preferences, in the Appearances tab, you select your time zone. There is a drop down where you can select your time zone. Interstellarity (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@BetterOfThatWay: It may not work, though I've tried. I do primarily edit on a manged Chromebook, however, so... Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 03:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Changing text to links in Commons; what am I doing wrong, please?

I've changed image caption text to be links on: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ViewFromMistayaSummitToNWMtsForbesLyellColumbia.jpg but when I look at the image at the top of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistaya_Mountain the caption is just plain text. How am I screwing up? TIA. BrettA343 (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343. I don't think you're really screwing up; it's just that the Commons and Wikipedia pages are technically two different pages. I think all you need to do is WP:WIKILINK the relevant parts of the caption in the article infobox's |photo_caption= parameter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The caption feature on file pages (commons:Commons:File captions) cannot contain links or other wiki markup. It must be plain text. The caption displayed at Mistaya Mountain is not from the file page but from [4]. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I guess the lesson for me here is not to use the caption I put on in Commons, but to use the captions in Wikipedia, because I now find that that works like a charm with links. BrettA343 (talk) 04:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

how to add links to a stub I expanded

I expanded a stub about a unique Indonesian butterfly so I would like to add links that show the geographical location, the classification of butterfles and other sites of this nature. How would I do that and how do I cite these web-sites correctly? Thanks very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiantambusisiana (talk • contribs) 21:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Canadiantambusisiana: to cite see WP:Citing sources. If you want a plain reference, copy and paste this markup, replacing the example url with the actual url: <ref></ref>. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 21:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Using the VisualEditor, you can just click on the "Cite" button and enter the URL or DOI. To add a map showing geographical range, you can either click on Insert>Image or have a look at the source in articles such as Dodo, the trick is to add a parameter | range_map = Mauritius island location.svg. What other information would you like to show regarding classification? – Thjarkur (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Canadiantambusisiana, the VE "Cite generator" is not bad, but depending on how the web site is organized, it often gets things wrong. If you use it , you always need to check the provided cite, and correct any fields which are wrong, and add any which may be missing. The link which Thjarkur helpfully provided above shows how to accept or correct the cite provided by the generator. Please do not blindly accept the generator's output, it is simply not as smart as a human in extracting citation information. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 07:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Unpatrolled/unreviewed articles

Is there a way to list all articles created by oneself, yet unpatrolled? Thanks! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 04:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:NewPagesFeed and set the filters appropriately. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, well duh! I am gonna hide in the dark corners for a time, now. Thanks a bunch! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 11:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Is the Daily Mail okay to cite here?

Hey, I'm editing an article about pigeons. I need to cite the statement that seagulls have been recorded occasionally preying on them. I found this Mail article, with video, in which you can clearly see the bird being attacked and eaten. The information in the article is irrelevant really, since you can see what's happening in the video.

I highly doubt they would have a reason to fabricate/manipulate a video like this.

So is it okay to use?

Thanks. Watermelon-lemon (talk) 02:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Watermelon-lemon. I think the general consensus of the Wikipedia community is that the Daily Mail isn't really considered to be a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes as explained at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources; however, there might be some cases where it can be used which means it might be worth asking about this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. One thing, though, is that it's unlikely that the video itself would be considered to be a reliable source unless it can be established creator and anyone interpreting the video is a reliable source as explained in Wikipedia:Video links; so, if you can find a reliable source which states that "seagulls sometimes prey on pigeons" and contains a video showing such a thing, then that would probably be OK to use; however, a reliable source stating the same without a video would also be more than sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

See WP:DAILYMAIL. --David Biddulph (talk) 08:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also there are many different kinds of gulls, and pigeons, so simply to say that gulls prey on pigeons is too much of a generalization.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

An internet search on "seagull eats pigeon" yields many newspaper stories about seagulls eating pigeons, mice, baby rabbits, etc. and other prey that would not be traditional seagull fare. Thinking is that a dearth of fish in the over-fished waters around Great Britain has caused seagulls to expand their food searches. This in addition to taking food off plates and out of peoples' hands. David notMD (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, if you're going to say that seagulls prey on pigeons, you need a source that actually says that, not just demonstrate that there have been occasional observed instances. If you google cow eats chicken you'll find plenty of evidence that cows have been observed swallowing chickens, but it wouldn't be an appropriate addition to either Cattle or Chicken to say that cows are predatory. ‑ Iridescent 11:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Autobiography

Hi Will, I want to write about the extensive work I have done as an Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr Ashish Singh (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Please don't. See WP:Autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

We don't get to write articles about our own careers. If you are truly notable enough for other people to write about you, in time, an editor may decide to draft a Wikipedia article about you. David notMD (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

3 Questions...

Hello dear more experienced wikipedians in teahouse. I have three questions. One, how many editors and contributors could watch a page? Two, I want to change my username from Ayobami Abiodun to Abiodun Ayobami, and how do I go about it? Three, an editor and contributor put a paid template on the page I created for my friend named Fred Martins. I was so infuriated when I saw that. I wasn't paid at all, and the subject in question met WP:BLP Golden rule which is notability. Despite the subject being my friend, I still went through a lot in putting the article together. I really understand WP:PAID and the article doesn't fall in that category. My question is this, how do I clean up the template. I also noticed that, the article has been removed from my watchlist. Thanks in advance. Regards, Abiodun 14:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayobami Abiodun (talk • contribs)

@Ayobami Abiodun: - Welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your questions: 1) there is no limit to the number of editors who can watch a page. 2) Please read this page for information before changing your username, and then follow one of the links under 'venues' to make the request. 3) Given that you have an acknowledged conflict of interest then, whether or not you were paid, I think it's best not to worry overly about the template - it only says 'may have been' so it's not definitive. However, any request to remove the template should be brought up on the article talk page and agreed with other editors. Hug^syrup 14:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

One step toward someone else evaluating the tag on the article is for you to state on your User page that you have a conflict of interest with the Fred Martins article, but have not been paid for your efforts. David notMD (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Should I edit out irrelevant links?

I sometimes see various articles that have internal links to other Wikipedia articles, but the link is with a word that has nothing to do whatever with the topic of the article, as I have checked.... the words themselves come up with the link, not another article connected in any way with the main topic. The section on Quotes under the article on Oliver Cromwell is an example. I check them first -- but I think I should just remove the - and the distracting, irrelevant link. ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowellcf (talk • contribs) 11:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a section #Quotes in the article on Oliver Cromwell. Could you please be more specific so that we can look at the problem? --David Biddulph (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rowellcf:, you may be looking at the so-named section in the Oliver Cromwell article on the website Wikiquote. Please be aware that although Wikiquote is, like Wikipedia, hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation and uses the same basic software, the two projects are independent entities. Wikiquote has various possible routes of enquiry under the panel on its front page entitled "Community". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.209.178 (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rowellcf: If you do refer to Wikiquote then it's a different project with their own policies and practices so you cannot apply Wikipedia guidelines about links. It appears they often link terms which have a Wikiquote page regardless of the relevance to the page the link is on. The first link in wikiquote:Oliver Cromwell#Quotes is wikiquote:Morning. wikiquote:Special:WhatLinksHere/Morning doesn't sound like pages where morning is relevant. Also note that Wikiquote has 35,000 content pages and the English Wikipedia has 6 million. If they want many links to their own project then they have fewer options than us. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Rowellcf. Internal links in the body of Wikiquote articles don't necessarily need to be related to the main subject. Take as an example, the article for "morning" linked in the Shakespeare quote "Have I Thought Long To See This Mornings Face". The quote is by Shakespeare, which is why it fits on the article for Shakespeare. At the same time, the quote is (at least partially) about the thematic element of morning. In case the reader is interested, and would like to find similar quotes, it would be appropriate to link them to the main article on morning. So the quote is connected to the subject of the article, and the link is connected to the quote.

This isn't the same for links in "see also" sections, at the bottom of articles that have them. In these cases, the links should be directly related to the main subject of the article in one or more central ways. Once the reader reaches the see also section at the bottom of the article, they've read then entire thing, and in case they want to keep going, we give them more similar content to read about. GMG ^talk 16:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Reference closing tag error

I added a link and some information to the Charles Krafft article. I had a total of four references to add. The first reference added correctly, but the second reference caused an error that I have seen before called no closing tag to the reference. I checked and rechecked and added the closing tag over and over, but each time the reference came up with an error and my references had to be deleted due to them creating giant big red marks. The last editor was a bot that added a wayback archived link. I suggest this bot is creating this error. This is why so many people don't bother to add references. The process of adding reference since wikipedia changed to source editing is always fraught with peril. If someone would like to go and check what I did please let me know why this happened and if it was the bot or something else. I left the article with just one reference, but the other two can be found in the history of the article before I gave up and did not add the fourth reference.Ty78ejui (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Link: Charles Wing Krafft

I've re-inserted a reference, with a date given as "2019-07-23" rather than "2019-7-23". Maproom (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

OMG it was merely that was causing the error? I will make a note of that. I wish it has said date error instead of closing tag error, but I will make a note of that and check that more often. Ty78ejui (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Name change

How does I change meh name on Wikipedia? Porygon-Z (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You may visit either Special:GlobalRenameRequest or WP:CHUS. 331dot (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:COI advice

I'm by no means a new editor, but I know the Teahouse is a good place to get friendly advice!

There's an article on the Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals (CIPP), which is a professional association in the UK. At the moment the article is very poor quality and I'd like to try and improve it. Indeed I started to tidy it up yesterday but then I stopped because it occurred to me that I may have a conflict of interest because I have a relationship with the organisation. I'm not an employee of the CIPP and I'm not involved in any way in the organisation's operation. However I am a member, which means I pay an annual membership fee and receive certain membership benefits (non-financial ones) in return. Is that enough to mean I shouldn't edit the article? On the one hand, I certainly have a relationship with the CIPP but on the other hand it's quite a distant one and not really any different to the relationship the millions of members of the National trust have with that organisation here in the UK.

What's the view on this? Do I improve the article or err on the side of caution and leave it to someone else? Thanks in advance for any advice. Neiltonks (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Neiltonks. That sounds to me as if it is a WP:COI , but not a very serious one. I would place {{connected contributor}} on talk:Chartered Institute of Payroll Professionals as described in WP:COI and go ahed. You could ask an univolved editor to check over your edits, and i would advise being even more careful to provide reliable sources than you might otherwise be. If you have any edits that seem at all dubious, describe them on the talk page and use {{request edit}} to ask another editor toi review them. You could do that will all your suggested changes, if you so choose. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

I attempted today to add to the talk page of Buffalo Central Terminal. I do not know what I may have done wrong. I was cut off and not allowed to finish. It seems that the talk page is difficult to use with an Android phone. My name is 1archie99. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1archie99 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC) --David Biddulph (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 1archie99 and welcoem to teh Teahouse. You made this one paragraph post to Talk:Buffalo Central Terminal, and no other posts to that page recently that were saved. I don't know how best to edit using an android phone -- I always edit from a desktop or laptop. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:25, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello, please I want to know how biography can be submitted to Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okafor Agholor Augustine (talk • contribs) 19:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Okafor Agholor Augustine Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write about themselves. Please review the autobiography policy. In order for there to be an article about you on Wikipedia, you would need to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person as shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If you just want to tell the world about yourself, you should use social media. 331dot (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Okafor Agholor Augustine. You say you {{tqqi}want to know how biography can be submitted to Wikipedia }}. If you mean a biography of yourself, then the advice above from 331dot is exactly right, and could be summed up as "don't try to do that here."

However, if you have in mind a biographical article about someone else, preferably not an employer, relative, or close friend, then I want to warn you that creating a Wikipedia article from a blank start is one of the harder tasks here, and it is if anything a bit harder for a biographical article than for some other types of article. All that said, here are some steps which often lead to success in article creation, if followed carefully.

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

Congratulations, you have now created a valid Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)