Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1008

Archive 1005

Archive 1006

Archive 1007

Archive 1008

Archive 1009

Archive 1010

→

Archive 1015

Content Plan: Online Job Skills for Inmates

Hi. Newbie here looking for guidance from a Wikipedia veteran.

A Wikipedia topic search in the area of online job skills for prison inmates seems to need content, such content being my area of expertise. I have a list of somewhat similar Wikipedia content.

My interest is not to make political statements or to promote an opinion but rather to collect useful facts related to this topic. Among other audiences, this would serve relatives of the incarcerated and those seeking to reduce recidivism with resources to support giving inmates and parolees a seat at our nation's digital table.

My request is for a wingman, someone well versed with the Wikipedia culture, to keep me from stumbling around to develop this area of knowledge and to maintain it given how much is emerging. I promise to take only a little of your time. Who would like to be this guide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshikli (talk • contribs) 18:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Assuming this is a good way to respond, I have answered questions below by inserting my responses in [brackets] below each question.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pshikli. Are you proposing the article Online Job Skills for Inmates?

[Yes, I could produce articles and such, as can others in my industry, even the inmates, and lots of people we would probably never meet any other way -- but most would probably add a few words with a link to a URL to relevant content.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

What is meant by "online job skills"? [In short, job skills involving the internet. Rather ubiquitous for the digerati like us. Not part of training or work for inmates forbidden from live, unmonitored internet access. Much more can be said, hence my suggestion.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Do you intend to promote a training company? [No. We could provide someplace to list them, but the important need is for a knowledge repository, much of which involves the public sector.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Please clarify for us, as your material might better fit into existing articles.--Quisqualis (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Pshikli, and welcome to the Teahouse. A phrase you used rang warning bells for me, so I wanted to clarify what you meant: the phrase is "develop this area of knowledge". If you mean "use your knowledge as an expert to identify reliable published sources, and summarise them into existing or new articles", that would be wonderful: many articles could benefit from the eye of an expert. But if you mean "use your knowledge as an expert to write articles" then that sounds like original research, which is not accepted in Wikipedia articles. Every non-trivial claim in an article should be sourced to a reliable published source. Even drawing a conclusion from information in two sources is regarded as SYNTHESIS and not acceptable unless the conclusion itself is in a reliable published source.

[Not entirely clear on the question but here goes. As much as I could write articles and provide content, I'm not looking for a personal mouthpiece. I would prefer to be priming the pump for many others in this field who could collect content, much of which exists in unvisited corners such as obtuse legislation, initiatives underway without an easy way to be found via Google, and URLs that address this indirectly but profoundly.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

The other challenge for expert editors is that you are discouraged from citing your own publications, as that is regarded as a conflict of interest. (As with other COI's what you can do is suggest that information be added that is sourced to your publications, and leave it for other editors to decide what to do with your suggestion).

[I could certainly produce some kind of whitepaper article to overview where things stand, but to leave it on some unknown editor's doorstep and hope for the best. Is that the way Wikipedia works?Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Beyond those points, and suggesting you read expert editors and (if you intend to write any new article soon) Your first article, I'm not sure what help I could give. What help are you looking for exactly? --ColinFine (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

[I am off reading your referral. That kind of direction is likely to help a newbie like me. Beyond that, I'm looking to learn the Wikipedia procedure to add a new information subcategory, whatever the culture, process, and structure to do that. The end result should be that if my son were in prison and I would like to encourage him to build job skills related to the internet, that Wikipedia has some answers and ideas collecting someplace. In another example, if I run one of the prison industry agencies and would like to expand license plate manufacturing to job skills with a better future that I have a place to learn of my obstacles and opportunities.Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)]

Hello, again Pshikli. First, some talk page etiquette: while I appreciate why you broke up the text to answer each point separately, we don't usually do this, as it makes it very hard to work out who is speaking - especially if you don't sign your contributions - I did sign mine, but only at the end, so you left portions of my posting unsigned interspersed with unsigned paragraphs of yours). On talk pages like this (never in articles), please always sign with four tildes (~~~~) - the sofware will replace that by your username and the time and date. If you do split your answer up as you did above, then sign each section separately; but that is not usually done.

Secondly, I am still not certain that what you are trying to do here is really consonant with Wikipedia. There is basically only one activity here: writing and editing encyclopaedia articles. The purpose of said articles is to summarise information which is already published about notable subjects. If an article is of particular interest or use to some particular group of people, that is great, but articles should not be written with that in mind. See WP:NOTADVICE.

I suspect that what will serve you best would be to find an appropriate WikiProject, which is where groups of editors with a particular interest organise themselves for the purpose of working on articles in that area. Unfortunately, I'm not sure whether there is a suitable WikiProject. WP:Prisons is a possibility, but seems to be mostly about the prisons themselves (though it does mention less solid topics as well); and there are a number that relate to education, but I doubt whether there's any existing group that covers your area. Nevertheless, you could post a message on the talk pages of any tangentially related project to see if there is anybody there that would like to work with you. The list of WikiProjects is at WP:List of WikiProjects. --ColinFine (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your suggestions had me looking into WikiProjects and it sounded promising until a search showed nothing even close to my topic, not even to the broader topic of prison industries. Wikipedia's "prison education" had one paragraph about the subject for all of the USA. Makes it hard to follow the WikiProjects instructions to collaborate with others in similar topics when Wikipedia seems to have a sizeable hole in this area. Given how much activity I see in this field, admittedly often opinionated, that just increases the need for Wikipedia to be the factual destination. At this point, I've spent my Saturday learning about Wikipedia instead of just using it, but I still don't have a clear path to contributing in the area where I could bring something valuable. I could certainly produce a list of URLs, even an article to navigate through them, but my Saturday is ending without a place to deposit that. How about I close with a suggestion? We have a 9-minute video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK_kgM1SBx0&t=11s about what our inmates do (a bit nerdy), and a 4-minute one at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1z3JxDTRpo&t=3s about why we do it. I trust that last one shows why the topic is important for Wikipedia to cover. There is a lot more info out there about all this. If you can think of how I can fill Wikipedia's hole without too many more Saturdays, do let me know. Pshikli (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi again Pshikli. Wikipedia is a huge and complex beast, and nobody should expect to learn all about it in one Saturday, or even a week of Saturdays! In particular, writing a new article is a difficult and challenging task. You are welcome to add material to existing articles, or create a draft using the articles for creation process; you're welcome to collaborate with other editors in doing so.

But we're not really set up for organising and managing such collaborations. The WikiProject structure is one way we do so, and it would be possible for you to try creating a new one: but setting one up, and keeping it going, are not really for the faint-hearted. I'm not sure what else to suggest. Perhaps start organising outside Wikipedia - keep information on Dropbox or a Google folder and appeal for collaborators on social media? If you ended up with a group of people who subsequently worked together on WP (with individual accounts), that would be fine as long as you were transparent and explained (eg on your user pages) how that had come about. --ColinFine (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I do appreciate the guidance. Having used Wikipedia over the years, it was time to learn a bit about its inner workings. The takeaway seems to be that there is no quick and easy way to cover a new topic, which may be a good thing to keep up the quality of the content. Given how much of my time I have to dedicate to making this social enterprise succeed, the honest answer is that I don't have the many Saturdays needed to pull together a WikiProject. Before giving up, here's a shot in the dark. Is there an easy way to enter a short article about Access2online, link to the content already out there about us and our initiative to improve criminal justice, and conclude with a few words calling for volunteers to put together a WikiProject in the area of correctional industries and their online future?Pshikli (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Can you help me fix the error on Tax competition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_competition

NFL teams that play in higher-tax states have it harder chance of making the playoffs, than NFL teams that play in lower tax income states, because they will fewer games. Highest income-tax rate in a 23 year period (1994 to 2016) won 2.7 fewer games per year that teams in states that do not have in come tax such as Florida. This is because NFL player have to consider the tax implications to consider for which teams they play for. In higher-tax states player ask for a higher gross income to recapture the cost of paying higher taxes.

More NBA athletes are singing with teams in states (example Florida and Texas) that do not have income tax, like Miami Heat, San Antonio Spurs and Houston Rockets. As a result some players safe a few million dollars in taxes.

NHL player leave hockey teams located in higher-tax US States and Canadian provinces to low tax jurisdictions. NHL players with no trade clauses who changed teams, picked teams with lower taxes. This makes it more difficult for teams with higher-taxes to skilled players players to win the Stanley Cup. The same goes for dockets and engineers (other professions) that will from from high tax jurisdictions to low tax jurisdictions.

Can you help me fix the error on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_competition --43435hgggg (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

References

The tag at the end of a reference is </ref>, not <ref>. I have corrected the occurrences in your question. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Naming References

I'm editing for the first time. I was proud to be able to get as far as I did, but then found error messages. First i had three errors in references #3-5. Then added more text, and had more errors. I was able to code the references properly to get them to number (1 through 8), but the Reference section is showing multiple errors, and most are from my not using a name "in the content" - what content? I tried using a name from within the url within the reference, etc. Here is a list of my references and below the "Cite errors". Below that is my text (note name attempts). I below all else is correct.

"Goldendale Astronomical Observatory". Geographic Names Information System. United States Geological Survey.
"Goldendale Observatory State Park". Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. Retrieved February 18, 2016.
Goldendale Observatory - History
Goldendale Observatory State Park - Dedication Retrieved August 31, 2019
Goldendale-Observatory - Telescopes. Retrieved August 31, 2019
[1]  
goldendale-observatory
[2]

Cite error: A list-defined reference named "renamed_from_2019_on_20190901042554" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "renamed_from_5212_on_20190901042554" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "renamed_from_2019_on_20190901042554" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "dark" is not used in the content (see the help page). Cite error: A list-defined reference named "depending" is not used in the content (see the help page).

---

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensar44 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pensar44. Referencing on Wikipedia is tricky and I am afraid you have run into problems. You don't need to do anything to make the references numbered, the software takes care of that. I will take a look at what happened. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Blog verses news site

I am working on an article for a rapper, Brandon Cahill who goes by the stage name Vic Sage. I believe the sources referenced in the article are reliable i.e. Medium (website), Revolt (TV network), Earmilk, Rapzilla . I researched these sites and saw that they have an editorial process (which I understand is what makes a news site reliable); they mostly review music and artists. Ultimately this artist is being reviewed, and his music used as an example of good music by some of the most notable rap-sites. Additionally, the coverage on him is more than minor mentions. Can I get more insight as to why the above-listed music sites are not considered reliable? Thank you! ITLRosanna (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, ITLRosanna. Your draft is currently clogged with many references to sources that are not reliable for the purpose of establishing notability on Wikipedia. So, the first thing you should do is remove all of the Spotify and Apple Music references. As for Revolt, that is not significant coverage by an independent source. It is a blurb and a video of the rapper performing. The Medium source looks pretty good to me. Earmilk is a blog and I see no evidence of professional editorial control. Does Rapzilla have professional editorial control?

As a general principle, it is far better to have four or five really solid sources than 20 to 30 mediocre sources. No reviewer is going to approve a draft filled with bad sources like Apple Music which exists only for the purpose of selling music online, rather than devoting independent coverage to music. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I found this statement on Rapzilla: "We have limited time to put into Rapzilla, so please make it easy for us to cover you." That is indicative of a semi-amateur part time venture, not professional editorial control. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Rm

Moved from talk page

I have been researching wikipedia since my secondary school teacher is a former admin. I want to know if I am allowed to vote in page move discussions or do I need a right for that? Goblin Islander (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Goblin Islander, welcome to Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Requested moves#Commenting on a requested move for information. It states that anyone can contribute to a move discussion. Usually we don’t vote on Wikipedia, instead a consensus is reached, but that is explained in the link above. Please also read our advice for younger editors, so that you can contribute to Wikipedia in the right way and safely. I hope that helps, if you have anymore questions, please do not hesitate to ask on the correct page, not on the talk page. Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:14, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Starry Grandma - Thank you!

Thank you so much for helping with the references. I'm still confused and there is one change I need help with. Reference [3] appears to now come before reference [2]. I would just reverse the order of the References, but I suddenly have NO ACCESS to that area. I just view "reflist" with nothing following? Am I blocked now?

Could you please add in the website description, rather than simply url listed for number seven [7]? To read:

Goldendale-Observatory (title) Washington Abandons its Starry Treasure of Darkness.(date) Retrieved September 2, 2019.

I would be so appreciative, Starry!

Thanks much, P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pensar44 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: Article is Goldendale Observatory State Park. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Goldendale Observatory State Park - after help source editing my references - Now invisible to me? Need help.

TO ANYONE THAT CAN HELP:

Starry Grandma you were a big help, but now I need to add content to a reference you edited it for me. I'm assuming i can no longer view my references because you were last to edit? or because..??

Anyway, please tell me how to add the article title that [7] is referencing. It should show: Goldendale-Observatory History - Washington Abandons it's Starry Treasure of Darkness.

Also, reference number [3] is listed before reference [2] - please reverse order. Pensar

Hello, Pensar. You can see and edit your references in Edit mode. In article mode, they are read-only at the end of the article.

Once you find your citation in need of a title, add the title, according to the format used in other citations in the article, or play it safe by re-doing the citation template.

The order of your references cannot be changed unless you change the order in which they appear in the article. The software does this to keep things aligned for user convenience.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Pensar44, just forget about the reference section. It indeed is supposed to only have {{reflist}}. That is what collects all the sources cited in the article in the order that they appear on the article and list them there for the reader. While editing, you are supposed to edit the references in the places that they are cited in, i.e. within the content of the article. Look at how they are cited by others and make changes accordingly. The order can not be changed unless you change the order of the citations, for example, by moving content that the sources cite. Good luck! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 22:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Pensar, The links I put on your talk page will help. The line where the reference is in the article reads:

The IDA stated it “recognizes the interest of WSPRC in maintaining the Dark Sky Park designation for GOSP,” but remained “unconvinced that the desire is reflected locally at the Park or in the community of Goldendale.”<ref>[https://www.goldendale-observatory.com/starry-darkness-abandoned.html goldendale-observatory]</ref>

Change it to

The IDA stated it "recognizes the interest of WSPRC in maintaining the Dark Sky Park designation for GOSP," but remained "unconvinced that the desire is reflected locally at the Park or in the community of Goldendale."<ref>{{cite web |title=Goldendale-Observatory History - Washington Abandons Its Starry Treasure of Darkness |url=https://www.goldendale-observatory.com/starry-darkness-abandoned.html |publisher=Friends of Goldendale Observatory |accessdate=2 September 2019}}</ref>

Hope this helps. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I think you intended the accessdate to be 2 September 2019 (with a capital S), and you probably didn't intend the spurious apostrophe which isn't in the actual title of the ref. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Idea

Hi! Sorry if this isn't the right place to put this. There is a feature that I always wanted on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if it exists or not or how I can get my idea heard. My suggestion is to have an article of the day. This article will be completely random, unlike the featured articles. The point of this is that the chosen article will receive a lot of attention, and so, as a result, it will be edited a lot and improved. The article Jordanhill railway station was the 1 millionth article created on the English Wikipedia. The article started out as a 1-sentence stub, but due to its attention, it transformed into a well-referenced and well-formatted article in a day. If the article wasn't the one-millionth article, it would likely still be a small low-quality stub. Melofors (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement? Looks like it might technically be "This week's article for improvement" though. Chris857 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Very NOOB question/assistance

I am new to this whole Wikipedia creations and (i think) i have created a Wiki. It is for a company i'm very fond of. Currently i have it saved in a sandbox (i think) but i'm very worried about trying to post it publicly because i'm in no way associated with the company and am worried about any copyright issues. My intent is not to "infringe" on anyone or any company, my goals here are to one, learn about Wikipedia creating process (which is daunting at this point), and two to create a page for things I enjoy that don't have any Wikipedia pages. So i guess my general question is, how can I get input on what I have created thus far from someone experienced in the ways of the Wikipedia? Do i need to actually publish it outside of the "sandbox" and just cross my fingers i don't get yelled at? Any input and advise you ll can give would be greatly appreciated.

SteelZ691 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Courtesy: S's Sandbox is User:SteelZ691/sandbox. As I see it, big problem is that most of the references are to the company's own website. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

... and the references were in the headings instead of following the text that they supported. The sandbox has now been blanked. Dbfirs 18:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

shoot!!! let me try to put it back.. i'm sorry about that. Like I said, VERY NEW!! Its back.. SteelZ691 (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

That's OK, but you will need to find independent references to establish notability, and put them in the running text, not in headings. There will be no copyright problems if you put the article into your own words. A company's advertising is nearly always promotional, so needs to be rewritten for Wikipedia. Dbfirs 18:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, SteelZ691, and welcome to the Teahouse. Thank you for wanting to improve Wikipedia.

First, if you are unconnected with the company then you are a MUCH MUCH better person to write an article about it than anybody who is connected with it. But if that's the case, I'm puzzled why you have put a COI notice on it. (In any case, that userbox, if required, should go on your user page User:SteelZ691, not in the article).

Secondly, I'll note that creating a new article is one of the very hardest tasks on Wikipedia. I always advise new users to spend a few weeks or months improving existing articles before they try their hand at a new one. As well as giving them a chance to learn how Wikipedia works, that will also add much more value to Wikipedia than will most new editors' tries at creating articles.

Thirdly, note that Wikipedia is simply not interested in what the subject of an article says, or wants to say, about themselves. An article about a company should be based nearly 100% on what people who have no connection with the company have chosen to publish about it, in reliable places.

Finally, when you do feel ready to try a new article, I recommend studying your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

@SteelZ691: Welcome to the Wikipedia community! As in any country or community where you are new, you have to learn the local language. Don't worry, though, ours is a lot easier than Japanese, Russian, or Dutch. ;-) You wrote

I am new to this whole Wikipedia creations and (i think) i have created a Wiki.

No, you think you created an article. Have a couple of definitions, from Wiktionary (emphasis added):

• wiki: A collaborative website which can be directly edited merely by using a web browser, often by anyone with access to it.
• Wikipedia: A free-content online encyclopedia [this website that you are currently reading] founded in 2001, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web in a number of languages.
  

--Thnidu (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

New and already in an editing war

Hello. I go by Wes. I came across the entry for my 1st grade school and saw it was grossly misreresented. I made some corrections and they were removed.

I guess I should just let it go but it is of some importance to me.

I attended an all black school in the mid 70s 76-78 maybe or 75-77. Along with my sister who was in 6th and 7th grades.

The school taught 1st thru twelfth grades and we we were the only white kids.

Not exactly MLK contributions I realize but it is our history as well as our friends that we made there.

So yes it bothers me to read the school was closed in 1970 and it only taught grades 9 thru 12.

So yes I continued to change it back until I was directed here.

Hi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwesleypark1971 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I believe the article in question is Alexander High School (Mississippi). John from Idegon (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires content be verified by published references. Sadly, what we (meaning thousand of editors, not just you) know to be true is not enough. David notMD (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Johnwesleypark1971. Please try to remember to assume good fatih and remain civil when dealing with others. Some of your edit summaries are not appropriate at all per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I've posted more about this on your user talk page, but try and avoid this type of thing from hereon. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Kuringgai now changed to Guringai

Kuring-gai or Guringai

I'm am a Guringay aboriginal man from Port Stephens why is it when all these reports funded by Government are being blocked or when I type my own words and reference the report you remove it the word Kuring-gai or Guringai are not from the aboriginal people from this area and it is not the language name . As an Aboriginal man from guringay Port Stephens it is very disrespectful.

Please read the report http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Filling-a-Void-Guringai-Language-Review-2015.pdf and the Sydney news paper

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/misunderstanding-the-historical-fiction-of-the-word-guringai-that-has-filled-a-void-in-our-knowledge-of-the-original-inhabitants/news-story/b1aec152c74220c535883621081a2fd2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gringai Man (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a question about editing Wikipedia? See also the reply to your question at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1001#Kuringgai Aboriginal word. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The best place for observations on the name, and for suggesting improvements to the article is at Talk:Kuringgai. Dbfirs 07:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How long for approval?

Hi,

I have created the draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:XinFin

Why is the approval taking so long and what must I do to get it approved?

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest1x (talk • contribs) 06:38, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Guest1x: Please see similar questions (and answers) above (e.g., this one). Also, just so you know, the complete lack of citations will keep your article from being accepted. Please also see WP:YFA. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Guest1x, your draft is not yet submitted for review. But don't do so yet. An unsourced article is doomed. Also, bitcoin related articles have a particular set of rules imposed on them, so extra care is required. John from Idegon (talk) 07:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft re-review

Hi!

I made edits which editor asked for, please re-review my article again.

We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dina Nurkaeva (talk • contribs) 07:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume that this request is about Draft:IXcellerate. Are you connected with the company in some way? Dbfirs 07:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The draft is already awaiting review. As it says on the draft: "Review waiting, please be patient. This may take 8 weeks or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 4,642 pending submissions waiting for review." Remember, there is no deadline. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Dbfirs, I'm a company employee.

David Biddulph, i know, but may be possible to speed up this process? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dina Nurkaeva (talk • contribs) 07:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dina Nurkaeva: - as an employee, it is essential that you comply with our policy on paid editing. <- please read this link and place the required statement on your user page. I have also left a notice on your talk page to this effect.

There is no way to speed up the review process. It is conducted by volunteers in their own time. It looks as if it has now been reviewed and declined anyway. My strong advice would be not to keep attempting to submit it. Some companies simply aren't yet notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. However, if you wish to try again, then I strongly recommend having a thorough read of our general notability guidelines, our guidelines for companies and our guidance on what constitutes an acceptable source first. If you don't meet these standards, the article will keep being declined. Hug^syrup 08:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding an article

Hello! Thanks in advance for your help answering my questions.

I am looking to add a page to wikipedia for our company. It is not meant to be an advertising/marketing page.

We are involved in a very technical space and provide thought leadership on radio frequencies. We have also developed patents that would have a public appeal.

We've recently been written about in several publications.

Can you please give me any advice on whether we could submit our page for review, or if there are existing guidelines for adding a company page as I see others are on the site.

Thanks again. I really appreciate it.

- Amol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.116.197.150 (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Please note that Wikipedia does not have "pages" for companies, it has articles about companies. You would have a conflict of interest in writing about your company, and you should avoid doing so directly. You are also a paid editor; as such you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to formally declare that status.

Submitting a page for review using Articles for Creation is the correct means for you to submit a draft; however, I will caution you that many people in your position think they are not writing a "marketing" page when they actually are. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to merely tell about something- merely telling about something is considered promotional here. Wikipedia has articles about subjects shown with significant coverage in independent reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's special definition of notability(in this case, the more specific definition of a notable company). Wikipedia is not interested in what a company wants to say about itself, only in what independent sources state. Independent sources do not include things like the company website, routine announcements, press releases, or any other primary source. In order for you to be successful in writing about your company, you essentially need to forget everything you know about it and only write based on the content of independent sources. It's technically possible, but most people in your position cannot do that. Also please understand that not every company merits an article here, even within the same field. It all depends on the sources and whether or not the company is notable by our definition. 331dot (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I am also aware that many companies desire Wikipedia articles in order to enhance their search results- Wikipedia has absolutely no interest in enhancing search results and does not control what search engines do with Wikipedia information. 331dot (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sicily "religion"

TO Whom It May Concern:

On the Wikipedia page for "Sicily" and specifically under the category "Religion", the current text states: "Before the invasion of the Normans, Sicily was predominantly Eastern Orthodox, of which few adherents still remain today." However, this is an inaccurate statement. Instead, the sentence should read "Before the invasion of the Normans, Sicily was predominantly Muslim." The current statement is incorrect and a common myth, and only leads to further misinformation.

Please investigate and correct the referenced sentence. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.64.77 (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@174.70.64.77: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you disagree with the content on a page, you should raise this at the article talk page. When you do so, make sure to provide reliable sources that back up your argument. Wikipedia only includes information based on what reliable sources tell us, and not what individual contributors know/think/believe to be correct. Hug^syrup 12:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

• The statement the IP refers to is unsourced, and therefore can be removed before discussion. The whole sentence should go, since it has little relevance to the current demographics of Sicily (except to say that there are Eastern Orthodox today, which needs a ref). Note that the IP is correct - see the lead of Emirate of Sicily states Until the late 12th century, and probably as late as the 1220s, Muslims formed a majority of the island's population, except in the northeast region of Val Demone with tons of sources. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

deprecated parameter

"Cite uses deprecated parameter |dead-url= (help)" (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea_national_football_team)

since when? The help file does not give any idea what to replace it with...

Quebec99 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Quebec99:. Per Template:Citation, dead-url= should be replaced with url-status=. There is more information about this, the values it can take, and the interplay with URL and archive-URL at Template:Citation#URL. It looks as if there are a couple other cite errors in that page, as well: either a cite web template without a website value, or a cite news template without a newspaper value. Hug^syrup 12:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

See also Help talk:Citation Style 1 in the section "update to the cs1|2 module suite after 2 September 2019" (linking to 2 module suite after 2 September 2019 doesn't work). --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I am going to ignore these errors for a week or so. The editors who updated the template clearly went about it the wrong way. They sprang up the errors on hundreds of thousands of articles, including featured articles, first, now they are going to run a bot to try and fix all the citations on affected articles, and then go about updating help pages in their own time. Totally ridiculous plan, if you ask me. I hope they will revert the changes and come up with a non-disruptive implementation plan, but won't make a fuss. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 13:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring this out.

Quebec99 (talk) 14:00, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello

Hi,

I am new on Wikipedia and trying to create a new page but I can't see my page is getting published. Can someone please guide me since this is my first effort on Wikipedia. The only thing I can see that my content is saved in Sandbox. Since I am a beginner, I would appreciate if someone could help me in a very simple language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murad400 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murad400 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Murad400, and welcome to the Teahouse. Writing a new article is one of the harder tasks in editing Wikipedia, and I always advise new editors to spend a few weeks or months working on improving some of our six million existing articles, and learning how Wikipedia works, before embarking on this challenging task.

The essay your first article explains many of the things you need to think about when you want to write a new article; but the one I will single out is sources: every single statement in a Wikipedia article should be derived from a reliable published source, and (especially in an article about a living person) it is best to cite that source. Your draft User:Murad400/sandbox cites no sources at all. This means that it does nothing to establish that Abdulla is notable and that an article about him is appropriate at all. (He might be, if he plays for a national team; but the article needs to establish that, with sources).

The direct answer to your question is that you can submit your draft for review by inserting {{subst:submit}} (with the double curly brackets) at the top of the draft. But if you do so in its current state, it will certainly be declined, so please don't do so until you've found and cited some independent reliable published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To what ColinFine wrote, I will add that it appears you have been working in two places, the sandbox and a draft: Draft:Mohamed Abdulla (Cricketer). I suggest you stop the Sandbox and work on the draft. But as CF noted, no citations = not acceptable as an article. David notMD (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine, I really appreciate your positive response and guidance. However, as far as sources are concerned, I have linked my article with different sources about Abdulla that he is a notable cricket player who has debuted before 2005 and he already appeared in 2018-19 ICC T20 World Cup Africa Qualifier and represented Malawi as a captain. I also linked his cricinfo player profile that should be enough to proclaim that he is a notable cricket star for his country. I guess, Cricinfo is a very reputable source for any cricket player in the world that should be considered as a reliable published source. I could be wrong but then what more other independent reliable sources should I gather in order to justify his services for his country. Nevertheless, I would not be in a favour of submitting something if it's going to be rejected.

Thank you David notMD for your kind input. Since I said that I am new on Wikipedia, I have also noted that I was working on two places and I could not find a way to restart my editing on the draft. Therefore, I start working in my Sandbox. I will still look into it and will try to work on my draft before I will submit my article for publish. Since it's a very early stage and I am still going through with my learning process, I would also like to know about inserting a player photo in his wikipedia bio. Is there any way if you guys can help me publishing this page? I would certainly appreciate your guidance/suggestions on the same. Thank you! Murad400 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murad400 (talk • contribs) 06:56, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

It appears you have decided to move this to article space without waiting for a review Mohamed Abdulla (cricketer). The article has now been nominated for deletion. You can continue to improve the article, and also create a comment at the deletion discussion. Please remember to 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to list every page I edited once?

The page Special:MyContributions has the option “Only show edits that are latest revisions”, which shows all revisions that are the lastest revisions among all editors of the page.

How can I show only my lastest revisions?

In other words: How do I list every page I have edited, but only once per page? (lastest edit)

If it is not possible yet, I suggest it as a feature. --Handroid7 (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Handroid7: - There may be other ways to do this, but the one I use is to visit this xtools link. There you will find a list of all of the Mainspace pages you have edited. There may be a limit to how many are shown here, so for users who have edited hundreds or thousands of pages, this may not work, but for you and me it will show everything. Hug^syrup 11:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good! --Handroid7 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add a "section" in an existing article?

I am looking at a Wikipedia page that has no sections, and would like to insert, "Career," "History," "Education," etc. Not sure how to do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianelane777 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Dianelane777, welcome to Wikipedia. To insert a section, simply type the header in between two equal signs like this

== Career == 

Regards, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Large deletions

What do you do when large deletions are made from a page, that is personally (subjective) viewed as devaluing the article ? The content was existing for over a year and deleted onmass without any consultation, content appeared to be following concensus of the article. Can supply more details, concerned just putting back would be considered "war" personally consider deletion was unwarrented and or vandalism. Topic is contentious, but useful. Deleted matters were well referenced and legally factual, synopsis of state of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodconn (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you writing about the article Thoughts and prayers? Mass shootings may be the trigger for T&P responses, but laws and proposed laws about gun control not necessarily relevant to the article. Talk page of the article the best place to discuss. David notMD (talk) 17:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle Royale

On the Battle Royale page,can you mention some more things (Season X,guns,LTMs),as I am a big editor(Andrewg100)on that website — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, ImtheOneKhaled. Aren't you a blocked user?

JUDAS ISCARIOT

There is a new book out titled "Holy Betrayal: The Story of Judas." How does a person get this new version of the Judas betrayal into the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judas_Iscariot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.252.2.150 (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This book [1]? AFAICT, it's selfpublished, so basically, you don't, see WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What now, after guidance on Talk page

On the CAHPS Talk page, I first proposed a sweeping revision of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Consumer_Assessment_of_Healthcare_Providers_and_Systems&action=edit. In response, a Wikipedian greatly helped me with guidance; now I want to move forward and make edits (mainly corrections) to the first paragraph of the same article.

How should I proceed? Should I propose the changes on the Talk page (explaining the reasons for the changes) or be bold and use the article Edit box? If I should use Talk, should I go to the top and indent?

As stated on my user page, I work for AHRQ, the government agency that supports the CAHPS surveys. Bleve51 (talk) 18:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to add information when "Citation needed"

Good evening dear Teahouse wizards! After a break and some material research, I'm ready to continue working on my draft article. I got a "citation needed" in a line which I would love to do, but don't know how. Do I just delete [citation needed] and add references? And how can I refer to an article in a print magazine that not accessible online? Many thanks for your support! --Fmkaiser (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if you have a WP:Reliable source then just delete the citation needed tag and add your source between <ref> ... ,</ref> tags. See WP:Referencing for beginners for details. The numbering is automatic, so don't add numbers. Dbfirs 19:50, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I did that now. I think I will resubmit soon to get a new feedback. There are a row of magazine articles I will soon be able to refer to as well, but I need to dig into archives first.

--Fmkaiser (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I rewrite a whole page while saddled with a conflict of interest?

Hello,

I've edited and written/rewritten several Wikipedia pages before, but on the last one where I rewrote several sections of to make the page more neutral, Digital polymerase chain reaction, someone placed a template on the top warning readers that a major contributor to this article (me) has a COI. There's another page I want to make significant edits to (ATAC-seq) to clean it up, but I don't want the same warning to appear.

I know I can request that others make edits in the talk page. But what if I've drafted a rewrite of the entire page? How do I communicate all of the changes I want to make without rewriting the page myself?

Thank you, Cglife.bmarcus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cglife.bmarcus: Post your suggested changes/rewrite on the article's talk page for discussion with other editors. Perhaps also consider working on articles where you have no COI. RudolfRed (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring on the page Samoa

Hello, fellow Wikipedians! I want to report this IP address 107.214.239.62 It is constantly removing useful content on the page Samoa without any explanation, and when I undid his/her revisions he is undoing mine. Could you someone help resolve this? Thank you. Angus1986 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Angus1986. You need to reach a consensus with the IP first. If that fails, you can file a report at WP:AN3. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Why aren't sortable tables sortable in mobile view? And why doesn't Help:Sorting say anything about it? --Thnidu (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Thnidu, and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm sorry you had to wait 24 hrs for this not especially helpful reply! Although I do the majority of my editing on a mobile device at the moment, it's usually in desktop mode. I hadn't noticed table sorting wasn't offered in mobile view, and it's a shame that its absence isn't explicitly noted in Help:Sorting. Perhaps you might wish to suggest a note to this effect is added by commenting at Help talk:Sorting. You might like to check out the limited mention of sorting at this subsection of Help:Table.

There is a section on MediaWiki (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/VisualEditor_on_mobile) which you might like to monitor, or perhaps to contribute your own observations or feedback via its discussion page. Hope this helps a bit. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A notable celebrity page keeps being deleted

Can someone help? I am sick of this page and editors constantly fighting back claiming Forbes is not mainstream press, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kropfmichele2 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be about Draft:Alexa Curtis. AfC has been declined four times. Kropfmichele2 deleted the declines from the record of the AfC!! David notMD (talk) 18:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

An editor restored the declines. David notMD (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

How to rate the importance of an article?

Hello,

I'm a member of Wikiproject Apps and one of the open tasks is to rate the importance of unclassified articles. Can someone explain me how is this done? (e.g. I would like to classify the importance of the article tvOS as high within the scope of Wikiproject Apps)

Thanks in advance, --Coel Jo (talk) 23:42, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Priority of topic lists the classes as: top = must-have, high = a depth of knowledge, mid = fills in more minor details, etc. I would also expect some consistency between articles; Microsoft Windows is presently mid-importance in Wikiproject Apps - is tvOS more important to the subject of apps than Windows? (I think maybe Windows needs to have its importance upped). Chris857 (talk) 00:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I totally agree with you @Chris857. According the importance scale wikipedia:WikiProject_Apps#Importance_scale presented in Wikiproject Apps, Microsoft Windows should be tagged has top-importance. Could you please explain me how does one rate the importance of an article (and how to change the importance of an article?). Thanks in advance, Coel Jo (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

How do I add an updated corporate logo to a page?

Hello! How do I add an updated corporate logo to a page? I've already disclosed that I'm a paid contributor and I see that the page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sportsman%27s_Warehouse is featuring an outdated company logo that is no longer in use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GDPSPWH (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi GDPSPWH. Only files uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons can be added to Wikipedia articles; so, you or someone else is going to need to upload the file first. Where you upload the file is going to be pretty much determined by how you intend to license the file. If you intended to license the file in accordance with c:Commons:Licensing, you should upload the file to Commons; on the other hand, if you intended to upload the file as non-free content, you should upload the file to Wikipedia. Most corporate/company logos are protected by copyright, which means they typically cannot be uploaded to Commons per c:Commons:Fair use; in some cases though, the logo may not really eligible for copyright protection for some reason (see c:Commons:Threshold of originality for an example of this) and can be uploaded as public domain; public domain files can be uploaded to Commons as long as they are considered to be public domain in both their country of origin and the United States.

Once you figure where you want to upload the file, you can just do so yourself per Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard or c:Commons:Upload Wizard, and once you've uploaded the file you can simply replace the one currently used in the infobox with it. Make sure you leave a clearly worded edit summary explaining why you made the edit and also that you're a PAID editor. Then, it might be a good idea to follow up with a post on the article's talk page just to further clarify. Changing the logo should be a non-contentious change per WP:COIADVICE; if, however, anyone reverts or otherwise challenges the change, then you should discuss things on the article's talk page.

If the new file is going to be licensed as non-free content, another option would be to go to the existing file's page at File:Sportsman Warehouse logo.jpg and click on "Upload a new version of this file" in the "File history" section; this is usually the recommended thing to do when you're essentially just upload a slight change to the existing file (e.g. resizing or straightening), but it's not really a good idea if the "new" version is completely different because the older the older version will be overwritten per WP:F5 and no longer will be able to be used.

If you're worried about trying to upload the file yourself (particularly if it's going to be a non-free file), you can ask for help at Wikipedia:Files for upload. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I have two citation and both are conflicting ,one of them is newer though what to do

Hi guys, S0091 ChamithN

this is regarding early life section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sushant_Singh_Rajput

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/did-you-know/did-you-know-that-sushant-singh-rajput-scored-an-all-india-rank-of-7-in-dce-engineering-exams-in-2003/articleshow/67655280.cms

and

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Madhuri-wanted-to-learn-dance-from-me-Sushant/articleshow/18086314.cms

as per the lastest article sushant cleared DCE/DTU entrance exams with AIR 7 and not AIEEE which is in conflict with other article

In fact, DTU started admitting engineering candidates with AIEEE (JEE Main) ranks only since 2010.

source: https://www.shiksha.com/b-tech/articles/dtu-to-admit-students-on-the-basis-of-aieee-2010-blogId-1655

what to do in ths scenario , seems like there is an error in the older article itself. please help. I am new here

Advance apology for any mistakes

--Reetkr (talk) 19:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reetkr. If you truly think the older source is wrong, you can be WP:BOLD and correct things based upon the newer source. Just make sure you explain why in your edit summary. It might also be a good idea for you to further clarify on Talk:Sushant_Singh_Rajput. If, on the other hand, you're not really sure, then be WP:CAUTIOUS and discuss first on the article's talk page or possibly even at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Being "newer" doesn't necessarily make one source more correct than the other, and even reliable sources sometimes contain errors. At the same time, since both sources are from the The Times of India, it's quite possible that the newer source is indeed a correction of the "older" one.

My personal opinion is that both sources look like fluff piece-type articles about Rajput; the paper itself is surely a reliable source, but it's hard to say how much editorial oversight there is with respect to articles such as these. So, it's kind of hard to say which source is more "correct" or more "reliable". The older source does, however, seem to be more of an interview with Rajput than anything else, and interviews are not always considered reliable sources because someone might talk about things as they remember them, which might not be actually how they really happened. There usually doesn't tend to be lots of fact-checking going on in interviews such as ones with entertainers because that's not really the point of the this type of interview to begin with; so, the interviewer just either assumes that the interviewee is speaking the truth or doesn't really care if they're not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)