Jump to navigation Jump to search

(Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.)

General Understanding | Speedy Page Deletion[edit]

Hi, if a page was once speedily deleted for lack of notable references, can it be speedily deleted again if some other editor found the subject interesting, found enough reliable and independent sources to create a stub-page, and published it? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The page wouldn't be deleted because of the lack of references, it probably wouldn't even be accepted as an article when it was first submitted as a draft. If information was later added without providing references it would be tagged.
I believe what you mean is:
"If the article didn't meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines and was deleted. Then if it got re-created with reliable and independent sources or the subject somehow met Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines, could it be deleted again?"
If the problems that caused the original article to be deleted were fixed and the draft was accepted, then it probably wouldn't be deleted unless other problems were found. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The article having been previously speedy deleted does not influence whether it will be speedy deleted again, if you create a new article that makes a clear claim of significance and explains how the subject is notable it will most likely not be speedy deleted (although a deletion discussion may be started). If the article was previously deleted after a deletion discussion, it may be preferable to submit it for review. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rodrigo Valequez: and @Þjarkur:. Yes, that's what I actually meant. Sorry for not phrasing it better. This discussion is in reference to the article on Pearl of Peace. I read the actual deletion discussion from the first time it was deleted and made sure that the problem is resolved. However, it was deleted again through speedy deletion without any discussion this time. I had contested the deletion providing reasons for the page to stay, but didn't get a response to it. No other problems, if found, were highlighted. I created a stub based on the information and resources I found in my research. The only reason provided in the diff is that it has been deleted because it was deleted once before. I have 2 questions at the moment, if you can please provide an answer:
  1. Can I retrieve the published draft? I forgot to save a copy of it on my computer and had created the draft only on Wikipedia.
  2. If retrieved, should I publish it through the AfC process again?
Thanks for all your help. FelixtheNomad (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
You can ask the deleting admin to restore the article to your drafts or to email it to you, they often do so if asked. I would recommend submitting it to AfC. However, according to a Google search, the horse does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable enough for an article. The article was originally created by a paid editor. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I found the horse listed as 'of possible interest' by the deleting admin here on the WikiProject Equine, so I looked it up and found its pedigree listed on multiple sites, a full feature article on The Times magazine website, and references to how it is unique in its genes and coat colour. Found an article on how the horse was also part of the 2016 James Bond movie's marketing campaign. I thought that's a notable horse. Sure, not enough for a full length Wikipedia page, but good enough to go on as a stub and become part of the Equine project here to be expanded later on when I could find and source more information. FelixtheNomad (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The subject sounds notable, could you provide us with the sources you just mentioned? Also, do you know the username of the admin that deleted your article? I’ll try to get him/her to restore the article if you can provide the links. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Sure thing, the deleting admin was Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) and here are the links:
  1. (unique genes and coat colour)
  4. (pedigree)
  5. (pedigree)
  6. (feature in James Bond movie)
  9. (page 109 and 113 - image feature)
I think these were all the links. Thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted it, as WP:G4 – although not identical to the version deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl of Peace EV, it did not in my opinion address the problems present in the earlier version (lack of notability, poor sourcing – see the list of sources immediately above! – etc). I have already suggested to FelixtheNomad that he take this to WP:DRV if he wants it reviewed – I can only repeat that suggestion. He could also enquire at WT:Wikiproject Equine whether other editors think the topic notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Allright, I’ll get working on it. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

Hi everyone, I would like to add info to an article regarding a bestselling book, however I was wondering regarding the source: on most bookshops, including Amazon, the book is said to be a New York Times best seller, would the commentary of this sites suffice as a source? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeFalafel (talkcontribs) 18:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is a New York Times Bestseller, it should be possible to source it to the NYT itself without using a (potentially dubious) store front like Amazon. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, LeFalafel. the rank in the NYT bestseller list is usually considered very important, and also the number of weeks on the list. Further, the divided into several sections (the specific ones vary from time to time), & the importance of books in the various sections can be a factor also. When you find the actual list in the NYT, you should either gives the specifics in the article for example, "the book was #18 in the Feb.31, 2099 "self-help" NYT best seller list." or "the book was # 1 in the hardback fiction NYT bestseller list for 34 consectutive weeks, starting Feb 31, 2099. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability of a brand versus a designer[edit]

I submitted an Article Creation about fashion accessories designer Jonathan Meizler of the brand 'title of work.' I submitted it the wrong way the first time (sorry), and got this message:

"As you are a new editor, please submit this article through the articles for creation process. Please note that including nearly 50 citations is not necessary, and in fact is likely to only slow down the article's approval; an article with just 5 good sources is better than an article with 5 good sources and 20 mediocre ones. Including an exhaustive laundry list of collaborations and clients is also unnecessary and smacks of promotional writing. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)"

So I removed citations that I thought were extraneous (and some that I realized included 'title of work' accessories, but were not actually identified in a caption or in text), and really stripped it down so it would be more focused.

When I resubmitted for consideration, I then got this message:

"The fashion brands are likely notable, but I do not see how this person is notable independent of the fashion companies mentioned." This was part of a larger "not accepted at this time" message from User:Sulfurboy

I'm a little confused. When I removed citations I think I lost the person's notability. On the other hand, would it make more sense to make the entry about the 'title of work' company, making the founder and designer (Meizler)subordinate to the brand? Thank you for any guidance.

@Rosguill: @Sulfurboy: --Dakotajone (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dakotajone, from looking at the difference between the version that I moved to Draft and the version that Sulfurboy declined, I don't think that you removed any sources that would have been able to help establish Meizler's independent notability, since only one of the sources removed mentioned Meizler directly, and even then it was directly in the context of the brand 'title of work' [1] (it's also not clear that we should consider this source to be reliable). Whether it's better to write an article about the brand or the designer depends on how the subjects are covered. If reliable sources are primarily covering the brand, and mention the designer only in the context of the coverage of the brand, then it's better to subordinate our coverage of the designer to the brand. On the other hand, if there was a bunch of coverage of the designer and their life and work across many contexts, but not very much direct coverage of the brand (e.g. if all of the coverage was of Famous McPerson creating a new line, but no reviews or other coverage of the line are available other than brief announcements or mentions in the context of coverage of McPerson's life), then it would make sense to have the brand be a subsection of a biographical article. signed, Rosguill talk 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
my usual advice is to write the article on the person if it is possible that they may be significant now or in the future for more than just the single brand (or book, or whatever) When that happens, articles about the person are easily expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding plant growing zone info to plant info sites[edit]

Love looking up plant information on Wikipedia - would appreciate being able to find the growing zones as part of the information available on each reference. Can a line be added to the basic format so zone info could be listed in an easy to see format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:2A (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about putting this information in an infobox? --Tenryuu (🐲💬🌟) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The functionality to add that info is already in the genus and species infoboxes, if it's not visible then it means that it hasn't been added. We need people who are interested in that aspect of the subject to add that kind of info (HINT) - X201 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The Infoboxes ({{speciesbox}} and {{taxobox}} are intended to give data on taxonomic aspects of the plant, not their habitats or hardiness, which are very dependent upon where in the world the species is growing. By 'growing zone' do you mean Hardiness zone? If so, I doubt more than 1 in 1,000 articles would ever end up having anyone including that kind of data. To expect it across all plant taxa (and thus to include it as a parameter in a taxobox) is asking too much. That said, I always encourage creators of new species articles to add range and habitat information whenever I'm reviewing a new page. I find it frustrating when a page creator can't actually be bothered to read their own sources and extract really useful basic data from them. That said - the references are always going to be there for someone else to do the tidying up. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Did I just use the About template improperly?[edit]

Hi! I searched "NVSS" on Google with the intention of finding NRAO VLA Sky Survey on the wiki, but National Vital Statistics System came up instead in the results. So I added about templates to both the articles, linking to the other article, for easier access due to the identical acronym. Then I found the NVSS disambig page, and read that there were some guidelines for adding the About template, so... was what I did fine, or should I have done something else? —Undead Shambles (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Undead Shambles: Looks good to me. I added two more entries to the dab page, but they are titles containing NVSS instead of something for which NVSS is the complete initialism, so they don't need to be additionally mentioned at the other two pages IMO. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: Alright, thank you! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Undead Shambles and AlanM1: I disagree. The article titles of NRAO VLA Sky Survey and National Vital Statistics System cannot be confused. We don't use hatnotes just because an alternative title could refer to something else, unless the alternative title is a redirect to the page. NVSS is not a redirect but a disambiguation page so nothing had to be done. We cannot predict how people use Google, and then organize the whole encyclopedia after whatever is currently the first result on a Google search for a given user (it can vary by country and maybe other factors). People who enter NVSS in our own search box get the disambiguation page as they should. And for me, it is also the fourth result in a Google search, with no other Wikipedia pages in the first 100 results. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Doh! PH is, of course, correct. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 16:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Ah, okay then. In that case, would even a hatnote linking to NVSS be inappropriate, and I should undo those edits? I always thought hatnotes were nice for exploring the similar titles but I guess that's my bias. Even after reading the hatnote guidelines I'm still a little confused, so what about these two cases, just so I have examples to understand?:
  1. The hatnote at the top of radio galaxy, linking to a radio network named Galaxy (I thought that one might be a bit of a stretch)
  2. The lack of hatnotes for The Goldfinch (painting), The Goldfinch (novel), and The Goldfinch (film)
Undead Shambles (talk) 07:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Undead Shambles: Yes, the articles should have no hatnotes according to Wikipedia guidelines. The principle is to only use hatnotes if the full title of the article (including a part in parentheses) or a redirect to the article can be confused with another subject. See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. If you see the title "National Vital Statistics System" then you should know it's not about something else with the abbrevation NVSS. That's also why articles like The Goldfinch (painting) have no hatnote. When you see "painting" in the title you should know it's about a painting and not a novel or film. There has been suggestions that articles with disambiguated names should link to the corresponding disambiguation page but it has not gained consensus. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


Hello from Ocean Blue Project. We have had a few interns and other supporters asking why we don not have a Wikipedia page for our nonprofit.

How do we request a page for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B069:27C5:988A:7401:E946:A744 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not a Teahouse host, but I saw this question, and decided to answer it nevertheless. I understand that you want a Wikipedia article for your nonprofit company Ocean Blue Project. However, you have to demonstrate that the company is notable - that is, it qualifies for an article. According to the notability guidelines on companies, the company must have received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. For instance, these do not count:
  • The home website;
  • A news entry that just mentions "Our Blue Ocean";
  • Court hearings and cases, for they are primary;
  • Social media profiles, for they are not reliable and are primary.

Currently, I don't seem to be able to find a lot of information (other than passing mentions) on Ocean Blue Project (a Google News search revealed mainly passing mentions and the main search revealed just the home page and social media profiles). Honestly, I don't think this company is notable yet, but if you can demonstrate notability please tell me.

One more thing: please don't go ahead to create the page. Even when you have an account that is sufficiently old, after which you are technically allowed to create pages, doing so would be considered a conflict of interest, and would result in it being likely deleted. If it is really notable, you may request for the page to be created at WP:Articles for Creation (see the instructions there), and provide the sources. It is best to leave willing editors to write it, since the article they write will be written from a more neutral point of view.

All in all, I'm sorry that the company is not currently notable enough. Please don't create the article for it, even when it becomes notable. Thanks for asking at the Teahouse! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 04:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this: not one thing in the universe - not a person, not a company, not a band, not a brand, not a place has a Wikipedia page for themselves. Wikipedia has articles on many notable people, companies, non-profits etc. Those articles do not belong to their subjects, are not controlled by their subjects, may not be used for telling the world about their subjects (aka promotion), and should be almost entirely based on what people unconnected with their subjects have published about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

removing link to my sandbox/ talk page[edit]

Hi, I wrote an article last year on Ashi Tashi Dorji and had problems (due to my inexperience) in moving it into the mainspace. An editor/admin PRehse kindly moved it for me, however I am still linked to the Ashi Tashi Dorji Talk page via my sandbox talk page, which links to The article's talk page. Please can you help me clear it. Doctor 17 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doctor 17: Hi. I've just tagged that sandbox talk page for deletion. It should get deleted soon enough. If you want to create the sandbox talk page again, you may just click on the red link. Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 04:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
many thanks tLoM (The Lord of Math) Can I ask what the sandbox talk page is used for? Also, how do I create that vertical bar, | , the one used in the coding of a name. There must be a simpler way than copy and pasting...?Doctor 17 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Lord of Math: the vertical bar is called a "pipe" character. On North American QWERTY keyboards it is usually fond close to the return key on the right side, on the same key as the "\" character.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
so it is! thanks ThatMontrealIP Doctor 17 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Try this new template![edit]

Hi, I've just made a new template called {{Interlanguage link with draft}} (or {{illd}}). It is based on {{ill}} and made to specifically link also to a draft article, addressing the problems as mentioned in this user essay. If it works well, it might be merged into {{ill}}, as my template is fully compatible with {{ill}}. Please give feedback and suggestions on it, and thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Lord of Math. I'm not sure about the technical aspects of your template (Primefac does a lot of work with templates so perhaps he can take a look at that), but it seems that you’re suggesting/hoping to use this to add links to drafts in some way. That's probably OK for user pages and other pages outside of the mainspace, but links in Wikipedia articles are not really supposed to link to drafts/userspace drafts as explained in MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. In the Article space we should not be linking to drafts, and while I could potentially see some use in the non-Article spaces, I'm not sure it's necessary. I think the best place to garner opinions would be at the talk page of {{ill}} itself, since editors interested in that template will be more likely to see and comment on the new template and any potential merger. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Lord of Math: Yes- I'm in agreement with these concerns. It seems highly likely to encourage editors to include links to all sorts of ill-formed drafts (against our guidelines) and be used as a shortcut to avoid having to create a properly formed article. Used within mainspace articles, it would open up a Pandora's Box of links to all sorts of drivel, with absolutely no editorial control or oversight over what that content might subsequently change to within those drafts. For use in a non, mainspace page, I see no reason for not simply including a hyperlink to any draft. Although I can see its theoretical usefulness, I believe any small benefit it might bring is far, far outweighed by the risks it opens up. As such (and unless you can advance a very strong argument for its deployment) I would argue for its deletion - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes, Marchjuly, and Primefac: I see an obvious place of using this template: in Request article pages, as in WP:RA/NS. Would it be a good idea to use it there? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to test it, say, in a section in a WikiProject RA and see its effects? Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Just an addendum, I agree that mainspace isn't where this template would be used, and when creating an article users are notified of a draft version (so when I try to create Newman's conjecture I see a notice linking to Draft:Newman's conjecture, but I figure if the article appeared both as articles in different language(s) and as a draft, users may be notified of both. Anyway comparing the code, it is pretty much identical to the {{ill}} template. Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Lord of Math: Could you show me how your templated link might look both in a mainspace article, and in another draft, each linking with a draft of a notable UK topic (called: National Pollinator Strategy) that I have been slowly working on over the last two years, but never finished? It's at Draft:National Pollinator Strategy. Unless there is a sureproof and technical way of preventing your new template ever being deployed in mainspace, I'm not sure there is much use in testing it out, as I think it's too open to being misused. (I really am sorry to have poured cold water on your idea like this - I feel awful in so doing, and am hoping I might be missing something really obvious in its benefits.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I don't know much about the strategy, so I'll have to assume that this topic has a page in Spanish called es:Patrick Zachmann and a page in French called fr:Évolution du collège épiscopal français en 2013 (both are random pages in those wikis). Then it would look something like this: National Pollinator Strategy [draft; es; fr] . It looks the same everywhere, but I'm still trying to improve it, and there are certainly ways to disallow a link to drafts in mainspace (using template coding and magic words). Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: OK, thanks. Well, if there are foolproof ways of preventing deployment in mainspace articles, then I guess there might be some useful functionality in highlighting the existence of a draft. So, as was suggested - it'd be best to discuss on the 'ill' template talk page or at WP:VPP, perhaps. Good luck with it, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I've added a way to stop the Draft link being displayed in mainspace. (The other language links work fine). Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Would it be safe to test it in WP:RA's, such as a section in that for math? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Lord of Math: I'm not really sure how best to answer that. I suspect the original advice to post first at the ill template talk page is sensible, and maybe also WP:VPT, but so would be including a demo, as you suggest. One thing you very definitely ought to do is to update the documentation to very clearly and obviously define its restriction on deployment in mainspace. I'm still not sure it's needed, but see what others feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Submission got declined for Articles for Creation[edit]

Hi, I'm writing a page on a book called 'A Place for Us'. My submission got declined for not having reliable and independent sources. I think that may sources were reliable for this topic. I was wondering how I can improve my sources to get my submission approved. Kind regards, Gawande9Gawande9 (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gawande9: I added some more sources; the book does appear to be notable but the article was missing good sources in independent publications. I trimmed some material that was not sourced. Other editors will read your question above and likely respond in more detail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@ThatMontrealIP: Wow, thank you so much for your help! I really appreciate it!! Gawande9 (talk) 06:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Gawande9: - I've just re-reviewed and accepted the draft. It's been slightly renamed, so you can now find it at A Place for Us - well done! Nosebagbear (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thank you so much for your help! :) Gawande9 (talk) 09:25, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


How would one go about asking to change Wikidata statements (not the information in them but what they are)?★Trekker (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you referring to the label/structure of the fields? If so, you can click on the label and edit for example the property d:Property:P1448. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I would wish to expand Wikidata labels for parterns, I'd like to add things like "Fiance"/"concubine"/"common-law spouse" etc as options.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, *Treker. These are at present all special cases of d:Property:P451. If you want to argue for more specific cases, I think d:Property talk:P451 is the place to do so; certainly not in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Day Music[edit]

Hello! I'm a new editor to Wikipedia, but not a novice editor. I put an article out onto my sandbox about a local New England musician, Nancy Day, 2 weeks ago. It was written by me with just several historical points by her that I incorporated into the text. It is currently on my sandbox. How do I get it into the encyclopedia section of Wikipedia? Thanks!

BillyK — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Klessens (talkcontribs) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @William Klessens:, to request an experienced editor to review your work and possibly get it included in wikipedia you would have to press the ‘Publish Page’. Another button will appear allowing you to submit your draft for review. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Under unintended consequences, an hour after you asked this question your Sandbox draft was speedy deleted as promotional/webpage-like rather than encyclopaedic. Suggest you review WP:YFA to get a better idea of how to craft an article. Also, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you.William Klessens (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


Hi, I have a question regarding the copyright release of a picture. On the article of a celebrity, I found a display picture that on its description claims to be a screen capture of a Youtube video with a CC license, however when accessing the video I noticed it does not have any type of license. Would this be a reason for the picture to be taken down? and if so, what should be the process to request the removal? Thanks for all your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFulham (talkcontribs) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@DFulham: This is answered at WP:HD. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What must be done when I suspect a user of being biased if not a paid operative?[edit]

I have been observing the talk page of a politician. It seems to me that the article is written in a biased way— and some investigative journalism has shown that the article may have been created and definitely at some point of time the has been managed by said politician or someone in his camp. There is one user who aggressively opposes any proposition to modify the article seemingly past minor edits despite the article potentially requiring a WP:NPOV overhaul. This user has also been extremely active in the talk page of an election— I have also been looking at that once in a while— that Mr. Politician has recently participated in, and my view is that Mr. User is there also a force to oppose any unfavorable coverage and vice versus.

What must be done in such a situation? I am worried he has maintained a veneer of plausible deniability which makes matters further difficult to handle. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GGLLFFP, Honestly, I recommend passing this up to people that *do* know how to handle it, like an administrator. Send an email to an admin that you know has been recently active. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Moonythedwarf— do you think it is, for the lack of a better word, ok to take it to an admin? He has worked hard to maintain plausible deniability. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
GGLLFFP you can also bring up your concern at WP:COIN. You will need the article name, the user(s) in question and examples of the parts you feel might be paid or COI editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
That seems like a rather drastic measure at this stage but I’ll certainly use it if it comes to that. Thanks !GGLLFFP (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
GGLLFFP It is actually a preferred method to address COI concerns, and is much less than drastic. When you post your concerns there, other editors can assess them and/or take action if necessary. It is a bit like making an announcement at a gathering, allowing people to take notice of the issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It's really better to post the name of the article here, surrounded by two brackets on each side, and then any interested person can take a look and see what the problems are. Of course, then there is always taking it first to the Talk pages of that article; that is the normal first step. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Well, I can see from looking at the pages you've been editing that you're talking about Pete Buttigieg. This article now has 149 editors and 244 watchers, so your concerns will certainly get an examination if you take them to the Talk page. In fact, I'll go see for myself. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes indeed. Also see talk page archive of 2020 Iowa Democratic caucusesGGLLFFP (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There's an interesting read at WP:Boomerang. Anybody who follows a given editor can always check to see how many, if any, other articles the editor has been working on. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I am in fact hesitant to launch an admin report right away. But I don’t think it would be useful to approach this user on their talk page since I don’t see it as likely they will change their behavior (especially if they are paid not to do so). Would it be gainful to do so in light of moving the dispute process along?GGLLFFP (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

New page / need help with sources[edit]

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and just drafted a new page for "Scott A. Shay" and having issues with reliable sources to get it published. I'm asking for assistance with finding approved sources for him. He is a co-founder of a bank and author of 2 books.

Draft:Scott A. Shay

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SugiOrange (talkcontribs) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources, what makes you think that he is notable by Wikipedia's definition? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It is up to you to find refs. Right now what you have is not good enough and the resubmittal will be declined. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Why has the draft been resubmitted in this state? Books written by the subject do not demonstrate notability. What are needed are reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

He is founder of a notable bank and has more relevance than many authors allowed pages in Wikipedia, but needs work on sourcing and details beyond founding the bank unfortunately, in most reputable sources that's all the Relevance given to him, though did find two related to his book and one on taxi Medallions crisis:

  • Comments as Signature Bank Director/Founder [[2]] [[3]][[4]] [[5]]
  • Taxi Medallions - [[8]]

Slywriter (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Slywriter's heart is in the right place, but these references to Mr. Shay mention him only in passing. I suggest that Slywriter turn his attention to other people who might be more Notable. I did a search for "Scott Shay banker" on and came up with nothing. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

trying to fix a broken link in a Wikipedia page[edit]

The link from the Wikipedia page for Joana Vale Costa to her WTA profile doesn't work. I went to the WTA site and did a search for her name. I found the following works: but when i tried to fix the Wikipedia page, i see that is not how the link is programmed. It looks like this: * Joana Vale Costa at the Women's Tennis Association but it doesn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Blair H (talkcontribs) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Blair H: Fixed The solution was two-fold: the call to {{WTA}} needed to be changed to just {{WTA}} (with no parms) to cause the template to look up the link info from Wikidata property 597 (WTA player ID). I then edited that property (clicking on the small pencil icon after Women's Tennis Association produced by the template in the article) to correctly mis-spell her linked name (valle→vale). Editors apparently chose this as the solution when the links changed, modifying the template to look up the necessary value in Wikidata, replacing most of the {{WTA|nnnnnn}} calls in articles with {{WTA}}, and setting the properties correctly. There were apparently some that were not done. See d:Property talk:P597#URL was not working. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


I interviewed many people about the history of art in Las Vegas. I would like to place this information on Wikipedia. Is this possible? The information has never been published so it is valuable.

Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2C00:EEE:0:0:0:2DC9 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I'm afraid this is not possible. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means we only include information that has already been published somewhere before. Anything else is original research, which we don't include. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

what is the right way to cite same book multiple times w/different page numbers[edit]

how do i reuse same reference with different page numbers. see Mach's principle, it contains multiple references with different page numbers. and please revert 9-57 and 530 edit summary edits. Leela52452 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Some article prose<ref name="Smith">{{Cite book|...}}</ref>{{Rp|12}} and some more{{R|Smith|27}}.
Here's some more.{{R|Smith|112}}
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
After the ref, you add something like this < ref name=GLG/ >{ {rp|46–47} }, where rp means "reference to page," I believe. Then you type in the page number. I've forgotten where where you find this info on WP. (I had to type spaces into the examples I've just given.)BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
See WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once and WP:REFB#Page references. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Here's what I use (I found it): BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
If you can figure out the wikitext, there's one example in Marlowe portrait. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does "consensus" mean on Wikipedia?[edit]

So, I hear a lot about "Consensus" on Wikipedia. What exactly does that mean? I read the page for it, but it was kinda long and confusing... could someone help clarify it? Thanks, King of Scorpions 18:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sure there are so-called "accepted" definitions, but the important thing is that it does NOT mean "a general agreement" (the dictionary definition). It means whatever the closing administrator thinks it means, which is usually "the majority agreement" or "the argument for which I can find some Wikipedia rule or guideline to base my decision on." Argumentative editors never want true consensus; they want their side to win out; thus the closing admin has to just simply make a decision. Sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but there it is. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
It depends on situation. If I make an edit to an article and nobody reverts it, it can be seen as a kind of consensus, but it can also mean that nobody noticed it. Much is worked out in informal discussions, sometimes with only 2 editors, which never are closed by admins, and these can be pointed at as consensus. Consensus can change later, but depending on situation it can be "demanded" that such a change is shown in a new discussion.
Regarding admin-closed discussions, sometimes policies are important, like "Should this article call this person a murderer?". Sometimes it's more of a headcount, like "Should this article have this or this free image in the lead?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying! King of Scorpions 20:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
King of Scorpions, it is always wise to read the relevant policy, which in this case can be found at Wikipedia: Consensus. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


Hello I am writing a Wikipedia page and including some old newspaper articles that I found on ProQuest. These are from the 1950s and taken from The Wall Street Journal. I used my school account to get the articles but when I go to publish the page it says I am unable to publish it because the url includes my schools address(wiki refers to it as a proxy). Is there a way I could get the links without the school address in it (or proxy)? Please let me know because the way it is explained on this website I dont understand. Fmanheim1 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Fmanheim1. You do not need to include those full articles. Just cite them. Give the full title, the author(s), the newspaper, and the date of publication. If the article is available on the newspaper's website, then link to that. Copies of newspaper articles on other websites may well be copyright violations, which are never allowed on Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it`
Copies on ProQuest won't be copyright violations, Cullen328 - it's a legitimate service, which many libraries subscribe to. I agree with the rest though, Fmanheim1. You don't need to include a URL in the citations, just the details of the newspaper articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, this change has been done all over Wikipedia by certain uncaring editors who don't realize how disruptive it has been. By eliminating "proxies," as these links are called, now nobody can follow the original links to, say, a public library site or, in your case, a school's account. "You can't get there from here" is a big problem which I have complained about elsewhere and about which I have been either scoffed at or ignored. Nevertheless, Cullen328 is correct, you don't need actually need the link any more, even though it would be nice to have it so that anybody with the proper credentials (like a library card) can follow it to the source. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Page I created for an individual still in "Draft" status[edit]


The above referenced page I contributed is in Draft still. I would just like to know about how long it usually takes to be approved and be published in this process. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMelina (talkcontribs) 22:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@MissMelina: You haven't put it up for review. Before you try that, though, IMBD is not a reliable source, so it's going to be rejected. You need at least three professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources that are specifically and primarily about McIntosh but not affiliated with, dependent upon, nor connected with him. You might want to try these instructions on how to write an article that won't be rejected. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson, I think you meant IMDB? King of Scorpions 00:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMelina (talkcontribs) 14:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Usi (album)[edit]

Hi, I think I screwed up in naming this--sorry. Could someone please advise? Thanks very much. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I moved it and will do the DAB, thanks. Just let me know if that is not correct. I appreciate it. Caro7200 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Youtube Views written in Article[edit]

Dear All,

I am young wikipedia editor and I am encouraged to see this page help editors improve their articles. My question to this forum is that when we are writing about a person youtube views which is around 50 millions, do need a secondary source for that also. Or would it work by just adding a link to his youtube channel where his views are written directly.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

see answer below :) --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thegooduser, Thanks I have got a reply below. One my article has been moved to a Draft space and I want someone to help me in improving it. Is possible to help me out.Terminatorwil (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Youtube Views written in Article[edit]

Dear All,

I am young wikipedia editor and I am encouraged to see this page help editors improve their articles. My question to this forum is that when we are writing about a person youtube views which is around 50 millions, do need a secondary source for that also. Or would it work by just adding a link to his youtube channel where his views are written directly.

Thank You Terminatorwil (talk) 00:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think if it's just the view count you're trying to report on, then the channel itself would be a valid primary source. It would be the same when we allow a company's official website to report on facts and figures like number of employees, sales, key personnel, etc. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello Terminatorwil! AFAICT there is nothing directly about this in the "rules", but see Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#Subscriber_count_published_in_secondary_source. Personally I'm inclined to the view that if you can't find the number in a decent secondary source it's not generally worth mentioning. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

You all seem to be really nice people in helping me out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Drm310. One of my articles has been moved to a Draft space and I needed your help in improving it so that I could move it back to the Article space again. Is it possible to have your input. Terminatorwil (talk) 10:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

feedback from an editing newbie[edit]

Just wanted to voice somewhere that I'm super disappointed to discover that Wikipedia is not what I thought it was. Since the start, Wikipedia is touted as this open source, neutral, anybody-can-edit, just-dive-in kind of platform. After many years as a user, I came across a page that was in dire need of some editing. (References to Christopher Columbus "discovering" the Americas. I recognize that this is a politically charged topic but regardless of people's political ideas, it's just factually incorrect.) I spent some time editing a bunch of spots in the article to include more neutral terminology and within minutes or hours, all of my edits were reverted. I received heaps of angry sounding messages and comments about how my edits were pointless, that I was doing it all wrong, and that I needed to read eighteen pages of Wikipedia style guidelines on scare quotes and various things before doing any more editing. I also added a page on a group of people that aren't covered elsewhere and my suggestion was turned down because I didn't cite enough encyclopedia entries or something. Dang, I will not be making any more improvements or edits. What a waste of time. I get that it's hard to manage the whole internet and to keep things consistent and legible but if you need to long complex articles on style and grammar before making a contribution or having an edit approved, what's the point? Yeesh. Plus, Wikipedia is an important source of information and if it's heavily policed by editors who are angrily defending their political ideas, how neutral is that? Probably venting to the void here but figured I'd say my piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lashask (talkcontribs) 03:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lashask! I am sorry to hear of what you're experiencing here at Wikipedia. I took a quick look at your talk page, and an editor had left a note about why your edit were reverted on the Christopher Columbus page, Tarl N. asked you to discuss your changes you wanted to make on the talk page of the article, so other editors can take a look at them too. I know you are frustrated and I am sorry to hear that your edits have been reverted. Please don't feel discouraged, You can also check out The Wikipedia Adventure, a fun game on editing Wikipedia! Cheers --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 04:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Lashask It is true that there is a learning curve with Wikipedia, but as long as you heed the helpful advice given to you by others, and are willing to adjust what you do accordingly or at least be willing to civilly discuss your actions, you shouldn't have too many problems participating. You don't need to read a single guideline before contributing, just be willing to hear the advice of others who are trying to help you. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a collaborative project where people of differing viewpoints must work together to arrive at a consensus as to what an article should say. You are welcome to start a discussion on the article talk page(Talk:Christopher Columbus) and explain your concerns and what you feel needs to be done about them. I suspect that you are not the first person to have your concerns with regards to that article, and you may find it worthwhile to review the talk page archives to see if they offer insight as to why the article is the way it is. Please understand that Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about subjects- including the language used to describe a historical event or person. If the vast majority of them use the word 'discovery' in reference to Columbus, it would generally be used here. Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias, but we do present the sources for readers to evaluate and judge for themselves as to their validity or biases. 331dot (talk) 11:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

It won't accept the new temporary password[edit]

So how do I login? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1015:B02F:6E9F:2C9A:19A9:3906:73FA (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Make sure you are typing the password in exactly correct. If it still does not work, you may need to request another, and if that doesn't work, you may need to create a new account(and identify it as a successor to your old account). 331dot (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Second Account[edit]

I have a second account, Rodrigo Valequez 2. I've created it because I can't use my normal account while I don't have access to my normal computer. My normal account (this one) has a really complex password (I also use this password for most of my other passwords on other websites) so I don't log into this account from other devices. Is that a problem? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rodrigo Valequez. That's not a problem, as long as you don't use the two accounts in forbidden ways (like supporting each other in discussions). See WP:VALIDALT. --ColinFine (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Not specific to your question, just a bit of advice: it's generally bad security practice to re-use passwords. Many high-profile sites have been hacked, in some cases (incredibly) allowing the hackers access to plaintext passwords, which are then tried on other sites. Using strong, unique passwords will limit your damage when (no longer if) such a breach occurs. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the information and advice. I came up with this password a few years ago and I’m to lazy to change it one by one, maybe I’ll do it in a few days.. Thanks again, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 10:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Rodrigo Valequez, and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you considered using a password manager? There are several good ones out there that are free, and they allow you to have extremely strong and unique passwords on every site you visit (and even use gibberish for those “secret questions” that social engineering can often discover if you answer truthfully) while all you have to remember is a single strong password/passphrase that you never use anywhere else. A number of them also sync to your mobile device and can be used to log into apps as well as websites. Even if it weren’t more secure I’d use one simply for the convenience, as now I can use my facial recognition to log into many sites/apps even if the app doesn’t directly support it! CThomas3 (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice @Cthomas3:, maybe I’ll give it a try. Could you tell me the name of the one you’re using? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Certainly! I personally use LastPass, but there are many others worth considering as well. CThomas3 (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot @Cthomas3:, I’ll have a look into it. Also, do you think you could help me with getting a deleted article restored? Thanks again, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, Rodrigo Valequez, I had some errands to run today but now I am back. I am not an administrator and therefore can't restore any deleted articles for you, but I would suggest you visit either WP:REFUND (if the article was soft-deleted, for instance via proposed deletion) or to WP:DRV (if the article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion). I hope this helps! CThomas3 (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again @Cthomas3:,I was thinking that you could help me to convince an admin to restore the deleted article. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Are there any exceptions to WP:NOR?[edit]

It seems to me that there is a lot of original research that flies under the radar. The example that comes to mind is episodes of popular tv shows that explain the entire plot-line of the episode without citing one decent secondary source. Just curious if there are different rules for these cases? Thanks! Mistipolis (talk) 09:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Mistipolis! Yes there is, MOS:PLOTSOURCE. It goes for tv-series, films, novels etc. Basically you are meant to describe, not interpret when writing a plot-section on WP. This often works fairly well, sometimes editors disagree on plot elements a little (Talk:The_Mandalorian#Keeping_Star_Wars_lore_and_fancruft_out). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Mistipolis correctly. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What are some good article names[edit]

hi i would like to know what are some good artcle names — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmy1948 (talkcontribs) 11:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Dmy1948 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but if you want to know which articles are classified as "good articles", you may go to Category:Good articles. 331dot (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
See also Category:Featured articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanking sandbox[edit]

I asked a few weeks ago how to get rid of content from my user sandbox. I was very kindly advised the following:

"If it’s your user sandbox your referring to, you should be able to just WP:BLANK it and then save it. You could also just set |afc= in Template:User sandbox to “no” or the |plain= parameter to “yes” as well."

Now, my problem is that I have no idea where to apply WP:Blank (or the other suggestions). I have gone into my sandbox and typed WP:Blank. It hasn't removed the content, just added WP:Blank to it.

What/where is this Template:User sandbox in which I'm supposed to set |afc=no, or |plain=yes?

Grateful for any light anyone can throw on the subject, thanks. Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"WP:BLANK" is a link to a page on page blanking. It recommends "use {{db-user}} if you want to have [your own] page permanently deleted". So add that tag, complete with double braces, to your own page if you want your it permanently deleted. Or just blank its contents, deleting everything in it, and leave it existing but blank. Maproom (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
The explanation was at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#Clearing sandbox content.
If you want to blank the sandbox, just delete all the content, then save it.
As far as the template is concerned, if you edit your sandbox you'll see that the first line is {{User sandbox|afc=no}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)


Not sure if this is the right place to ask help for huggle, but when I use huggle and press good edit it sends a welcome message to the Ip or new edtior that edited the page. How do you make it so it does not do this. Thanks. The4lines (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines

Hello The4lines. The best place to ask this kind of question is at WP:Huggle/Feedback. Interstellarity (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Ok The4lines (talk) 02:40, 23 February 2020 (UTC)The4lines

Duplicate Articles[edit]

So a couple weeks ago, I wrote an article and published it. Recently, I went back to it, thinking I had made a mistake in the submissions process; after making a couple edits, I tried to resubmit it.

Within a day, the newer version had been rejected for being a duplicate. At the same time, I'm still not sure I properly submitted the original...

Can I unsubmit the first copy and resubmit the second one? (how would I go about doing so?)

articles in question: new:



~anna (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised that User:Anna'sAccount/sandbox was declined, as Draft:Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes had not been submitted for review. User:Theroadislong may be able to explain, & may be able to recommend what you should do. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Apologies I hadn't noticed that the other draft had not been submitted, I have now accepted the sandbox version. Theroadislong (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Url / Name issues[edit]


I've just made a page for The Night With... ( when I linked a friend to it on whatsapp whatsapp only saw as the link, the elipsis was just seen as grammer.

The elipsis is part of the charity's name but I can't see a way to remove the elipsis from the url without also changing the page's title.

When I hit 'save' on this question Wikipedia drops the ... from the url as well in the same way...

Any ideas?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneneedscheese (talkcontribs) 20:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Browsers do tend to get confused by trailing period marks. You might try percent encoding in the url, so might work for you; it will point to the article The Night With.... --David Biddulph (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, that works as a link but how do you make that the standard format for the url on wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everyoneneedscheese (talkcontribs) 20:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
I can't see a way to do that. I'll note that The Night With has been created as a redirect to the article, which seems like a reasonable solution. Firefox and Chrome handle the correct link correctly. The problem seems to be in how various apps try to auto-link something that looks like a URL when you send it to someone. I tried Google Hangouts, which linked to the title with no dots at all. gMail's sent link ended up with one dot, but I was able to send the correct link by using the link button, which lets you manually format a link and avoids any of its internal guessing. Please sign your posts at the end of the last line by adding a space and four tildes: ~~~~. This translates to your linked username and a correctly formatted timestamp that helps organize discussions. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Everyoneneedscheese: That is not possible. I don't know WhatsApp but many sites and programs have a way for a user to explicitly say where a url starts and ends instead of letting a program guess. The Wikipedia method is shown at Help:Link#External links but that method should not be used when Wikipedia articles link to other Wikipedia pages. [] produces [9], and [ The Night With...] produces The Night With.... Those links work but we don't use them. We just write [[The Night With...]] to produce The Night With... when we make internal links. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: yea I was trying a few options to see if I could do what I needed it to. Was just wondering if there was another way to make it do what I wanted but doesn't seem so frustratingly. As you say it is how different apps deal with auto-linking and each seems to do it differently. Hopefully I've signed this post, still new to Wikipedia so thanks for the heads up.
@PrimeHunter: Trying to get the URL right is more for other people who might be trying to link to the article from outside of Wikipedia rather than internal linking. Everyoneneedscheese (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Everyoneneedscheese: Just to summarize, if what you want to do is be able to copy the URL from your browser's address bar and paste it somewhere, there's no way I know of to change that URL. Just save somewhere the text of the link that David Biddulph gave above, which should work everywhere:
There's no way to make that appear as the URL in the browser (at least not Firefox or Chrome), which helpfully decodes any URL-encoded characters before displaying them. Giving people the redirect with no dots is fine, too:
Lastly, there is now this tinyURL:
Cheers. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:03, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks, for the help. Glad I wasn't missing something obvious! Now to tidy up the page. Everyoneneedscheese (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions about a proposed new page, "American Contact Dermatitis Society"[edit]

I am a member of the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS), a professional medical society, and currently serve as its Vice President. This is a voluntary position with no financial remuneration. The ACDS "Allergen of the Year" already has a Wikipedia page and I believe that patients and professionals would benefit from a more complete understanding of the organization, which is why I am trying to create a new page, "American Contact Dermatitis Society". I have submitted revisions but have not met the standard for notability; there were also questions about conflict of interest, which I hope I have addressed above. I appreciate your help and feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwatsky (talkcontribs) 20:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your PAID/COI situation should be described on your User page. I agree the references are not sufficient, as either what ACDS says about itself (website and its journal), or casual mentions-in-passing, or about value of patch testing without connecting to ACDS. David notMD (talk) 20:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Kwatsky. Perhaps you should take a look at meta:Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure since it goes into a little more detail and provides some examples of different types of paid editing. In addition, regardless of whether WP:PAID or just WP:COISELF apply to you, you might also want to read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Ownership of content for reference as well. The last page about "ownership of content", in particular, is one that many COI editors seem to have a difficult time understanding.
Basically, a Wikipedia article is written about a subject not on behalf of a subject which means that neither the subject nor anyone associated with it has any claim of ownership or final editorial control over anything written about the subject on Wikipedia. Content will be assessed according to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and anything not considered to comply with these policies and guidelines can be removed or revised accordingly at anytime. Any disagreements over this are going to be expected to be resolved through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, except when they are deemed to be a serious of clear policy/guideline violation.
Given the fact that ACDS and those associated with it would be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter, it and they would be expected to follow WP:COIADVICE and WP:PSCOI#Steps for engagement regarding the article's content and refrain from directly editing the article, except in some certain specific cases. So, while you can continue to work on Draft:American Contact Dermatitis Society pretty much at your own pace, you won't really be able to do so the same if the draft is someday approved as an article. This is not to discourage you from continuing to work on the draft; only to point out that COI/PAID editors are generally given more leeway when it comes to drafts than they are when it comes to articles. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange references[edit]

I recently encountered two articles that have similar items in the "References" section.

  • Judy Strangis has "Demetria Fulton previewed Strangis in the first season of Barnaby Jones; episode titled, "Sing a Song of Murder"(04/01/1973)."
  • Paul Lambert (actor) has "2. Demetria Fulton previewed Lambert in Barnaby Jones; episode titled, "Sing a Song of Murder" (04/01/1973).

Should those unusual items be left as is, reformatted, or removed? Eddie Blick (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

In December 2019, an IP editor made malformatted additions to numerous articles including the two which you mentioned. I have left a message on the user's talk page explaining how the reference should have been added, but that IP hasn't edited since, so he may not see the message. It may not be evident what the published source is which was intended to be cited. If no published reliable sources can be found, then the "reference" and the associated text should perhaps be removed. --David Biddulph (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, David Biddulph. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Broken formatting[edit]

Could someone with more template expertise look at Truckee station? For some reason the refences section is part of the rail track table. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 00:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

That sort of symptom is almost invariably because of an unterminated or malformatted table. Does this edit help? --David Biddulph (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@BillHPike: thank you for bringing attention, i have tried my level best to resolve the issue. Leela52452 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@Leela52452: - I had already cured it. Look at the versions before and after this edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I post a article but it is rejected several time. I think I already make a lot of changes but they still think I violate the copyright.[edit]

I post a article but it is rejected several time. I think I already make a lot of changes but they still think I violate the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzhu8516 (talkcontribs) 04:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Your draft was declined several times, meaning that, in the opinion of the reviewers, it was not acceptable as an article, but might become so if improved. Then it was rejected, meaning that the reviewer believed it its subject did not warrant an article, and any further work on it would be a waste of time. Maproom (talk) 09:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make this edit acceptable?[edit]

Newbie here. Made an edit to 3 pages (copy/paste so minor pronoun error) to reflect an important tax tribunal case. They were reverted immediately with accusations of vandalism. I deliberately kept them short in the hope that an experienced wiki editor would expand on them.

What would correct approach have been? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revertavid (talkcontribs) 08:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Revertavid Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I think that your edits were removed because the only source you gave was the tribunal decision itself, which is a primary source. Wikipedia should be summarizing what independent, secondary reliable sources state. Put another way, this decision needs to be covered in the news or other outlet with editorial control and a reputation of fact checking. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
In Joanna Gosling, you added a sentence that included a direct external link. Such links are not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. If you had instead used a reference, it might have been accepted. (Published primary sources are acceptable in some circumstances – but I suspect that this, a claim of misbehaviour by a living person, is not among them.) Maproom (talk) 09:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Revertavid First, I seriously object to your "hopes and dreams" that some experienced wiki editor will expand on your meager efforts. The reality (IMO) is that the existing set of editors cannot match the entropy rate. Anyway, while I am not suggesting by any means that WP is the place to air your view of what facts the public should be more aware of, I would encourage you to make your best efforts. Don't be afraid to do a rewrite and replace your original effort, but it is very likely that you are the best person available to properly present these facts which must not be overlooked!
Primary vs. secondary source: Well, I'm not going to go back and look at the rules on this. A primary source is not inherently unreliable. Actually, for matters of law, there is much to be said for a primary source. Specifically, it's actually authoritative. So I don't think that would be a very good reason to revert your edit.
I have two reasons I might have reverted this:
  1. "She lost against HMRC in a tax tribunal case in reference to his BBC employment status under IR35 legislation."
    Is "she" a "he"? That's news. We all want to know if that's the case. I know it shouldn't matter. Now I apologize if English is not your native tongue, but this is just very distracting. Maybe you're talking about her husband? This might make me think it's vandalism (notwithstanding WP:AGF).
  2. The more pertinent point is relevance. The subject is a newscaster and author, not some kind of tax law advocate or adviser, or someone who is particularly known for purveying extreme theories about tax avoidance. Will this ruling have a major effect on her career?
    Being from the U.S., I know nothing about the IR35 legislation, but merely the fact that she was a party to this case does not in itself make it noteworthy, nor does the fact that the subject lost a case with the HMRC make it noteworthy. In other words, although this case may be noteworthy, I do not believe it is relevant to this article. Based on that, I would be inclined to revert your edit.
BTW, note how different editors offer differing opinions and the explanations are not really aligned. If the explanations seem like a stretch, that may be true. The puts into doubt the idea that there is really objective judgement about what is proper for WP. Fabrickator (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing Discussions as a Novice User[edit]

Hi there,

Discussion on a move discussion for Royal and noble styles has petered out, without a consensus in favour of a move. I have read the relevant documentation on the procedure for non-admins, but I don't want to jump too far into doing such tasks without being confident in my judgement being correct.

So, my question is: When a discussion on a page move has not had any comments for well over 7 days, indeed over a month, should I close the discussion and place the relevant templates?
Are there any procedures or norms I may not be aware of?

Thanks! Balag12 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually non-admin closures are a prerogative of experienced users and as you stated above you are a novice. So, it is better to a ask another user. Ruslik_Zero 12:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)