Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Citing Pages in a Multi-Page Document vs. Only Including Said Pages in a Subset Document[edit]

I have an instance where an outside source ( has suggested including a cover letter and only certain pages (Page 77 and 79) in a .pdf file documenting a 'Proof of Concept' test relating to promession (, and I am questioning the validity of that approach, as opposed to citing those pages in the reference in the (existing) WP article, but including the whole document in a .pdf. The whole document is currently of undetermined length (I just haven't asked how long it is) and was written by an external company to the outside source. The .pdf document (whether the 3-pager or the whole thing) would be stored by Promessa and referenced by a URL in the WP article. The problems with their approach, as I see it, include:

  • The pages in the current short .pdf document mainly contain images of a test result, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of other images that may give conflicting test results.
  • WP users wanting to validate information relating to the test can't see any (unknown) context around the test that may or may not be in Pages 1-76, 78 and 80-end.

Basically, I think the whole document - currently only in paper form as I understand it - should be converted to a .pdf and included by Promessa. BrettA343 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly's response from Archive added by BrettA343.

Hi BrettA343. Your question seems to be a mix of multiple questions involving various policies and guidelines, so I'm not sure what you're trying to ask or where to start. Sources cited in Wikipedia articles need to meet WP:RS and not be WP:UNDUE. If a source is deemed reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, all that it needs to be is published and accessible so that anyone who wants to verify the accuracy of the source can do so. The source doesn't need to be readily available online and it can even be behind a WP:PAYWALL or otherwise cost a fee to see as long as it can be verified by someone who wants to do so; so, there's no need to upload an entire document or link to an entire document for verification purposes as long as it's possible to verify in other ways as explained in WP:SAYWHERE. Being available online and in its entirety certainly makes a source easier to assess, but it's not something that's required. Finally, official documents, etc. often fall under WP:PRIMARY and although they can sometimes be cited, there are limitations to how they can be used. So, the first thing you might need to do is assess the reliability of the source itself and determine whether it's a PRIMARY or WP:SECONDARY source based on the the way its being used. The place to discuss such a thing would be on the relevant article's talk page or at WP:RSN. Once it's be determined whether the source is reliable, then perhaps the next thing to figure out would be to how best cite it. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talkcontribs)
(edit conflict) Has the document been published by a reputable publisher, BrettA343? If not, the article probably shouldn't be citing it at all. It doesn't matter whether a resource is online or not: what matters is that it has been published, so that in principle (eg via a major library) a reader could obtain a copy.
Certain information can come from the subject's own website (see PRIMARY), but it doesn't sound as if the information in question is appropriately sourced, from your description. --ColinFine (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, @ColinFine:, I don't know (and you don't say, though I wish you would) just what in my description gives you the idea that it isn't appropriately sourced. I'm still waiting for more than the 3 pages I got on 14 May (as I intimated, even I don't think they're appropriate for a variety of reasons), but you seem to take a harder stance than I get from reading WP:RS and the like. For instance, it states:
"Source reliability falls on a spectrum: highly reliable sources, clearly unreliable sources, and many in the middle. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and unreliable sources.", and
"The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online; however, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources."
"It is convenient, but by no means necessary, for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet."
The first quote is self-explanatory, I think, and note that the second quote says both 'online' and 'reputable party', not 'reputable publisher'. It's my understanding that the party conducting the 'Proof of Concept' tests for Promessa is indeed reliable and reputable with usable source, and definitely a third-party / independent party not affiliated with Promessa except for these tests. I'm still unclear on the exact relationship between the two, but have asked those questions. The third quote indicates to me that - as at least I would expect - online access is preferable to "a major library" (though both would be ideal), not only because many people can't readily get to a major library, but it's got to be awfully major to hold every test and report conducted in every country around the world... Sweden, in this case.
You seem to shoot them down prematurely, IMHO, while I'm just waiting to find out answers and hopefully see the whole document so I can, as WP:RS says, "use my judgement" (plus I'm writing snippets of responses timed so that my 48 hour limit doesn't run out). BrettA343 (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi, BrettA343. I wasn't clear, because your description leaves unstated various points. It is not clear to me whether or not the PDF in question has been published - which, as you point out, is not necessarily clearcut. It is now common for materials to circulate on the internet whose provenance is unclear, and in some cases in varying versions: when have such things been published?
If the report is available only from the subject of the article, it is at best self-published. If the subject and not the originator publishes the report, there is no way for a reader to tell whether the subject might have altered or (for example) cherry picked the document. I know nothing of Promessa, and have no reason to doubt their good faith; but in general this is a concern. But I am happy to wait and see how it looks when you have the document and have decided how to reference it. --ColinFine (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello @ColinFine:. Well, of course my "description leaves unstated (a great many) various points". It wasn't meant to be a question dealing with all aspects of publishing and sourcing, just, as the Subject line states: A vs. B... Citing Pages in a Document vs. Including Only Those Pages. Being a relative newbie, however, I don't mind being pointed to areas that need consideration and your note on cherry-picking is relevant here. Indeed, I asked Promessa, back on May 14, if there there was missing context in the 3-pager: "Are there any writings that discusses these pictures or perhaps gives some caveats to them in the rest of the document?", plus about a dozen other questions. And of course, I have yet to decide whether to reference it - how to reference it is not yet under consideration! So I'm pleased that you're now 'happy to wait' as there isn't much other choice. Cheers! BrettA343 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


FYI: breaking this out as a separate subsection for ease of reading. If you don't like this reorganization, please revert this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: What a complete and utter waste of time Wikipedia's archiving bot (Munninbot) makes of this Teahouse sometimes. It archived my question (above) "because there was no discussion for a few days" when I entered it on May 14 and it's only May 16 now (i.e. a "couple of days" is not "a few days"). I'm dealing with a company in Sweden re this matter and am waiting on a related response to an email I sent to them on the 14th, Marchjuly's first response gave me lots to look up, I'm not full time on this and I sleep sometimes. And why is MY question archived anyway? I see questions that have been dormant since May 10!

What's the hurry re archiving after only 2 days (or even "a few days" when the last response has questions)? Timing of this bot should be corrected. BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC) BrettA343 (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@BrettA343: It appears that the bot that archives this page is Lowercase sigmabot III. It looks at the User:MiszaBot/config at the top of the Teahouse code, which is set to archive after 48 hours of inactivity. You mentioned that there are discussions that haven't had activity since 10 May that haven't been archived. I think part of the issue is that the #Deletion of file section was not signed properly. I've added {{unsigned}} to that post, in the hopes that the bot will archive a lot of the old discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: The discussions last updated on 10 May have now been archived. Thanks for bringing the problem to our attention! GoingBatty (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: You're welcome about 'bringing the problem to your attention', but can I also suggest you change the message from "a few days" to "48 hours"? Or even better, archive after a few days (please specify how many days you've chosen)? I find myself having to pace my responses so the 48 hours doesn't 'catch me' again because I'm still waiting for Promessa's reply to my email (it's another time-waster). BrettA343 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: The top of this page states "Completed questions are archived within 3 days." The bot runs once a day and archives everything with no response for more than 48 hours, so I believe this statement is accurate. Could you please mention exactly where you see the verbiage "a few days"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:05, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi @GoingBatty:, I've been getting the quote to which I refer ever since I started here - it's from Muninnbot and is part of the archive process under a heading Your thread has been archived. It states: "Hi BrettA343! You created a thread called < NAME OF THREAD >. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread". No mention of the 48-hour limit. BrettA343 (talk) 04:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: Ah, now I understand. You're referring to the messages that are being left on your user talk page. That message is a template located at User:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification. You're welcome to make a proposal for different wording at User talk:Muninnbot/Teahouse archival notification or a new section here at the Teahouse that isn't buried inside this other discussion. Thank you for helping me understand. GoingBatty (talk) 06:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Blocking user[edit]

Resolved: User in question has been blocked; referred to WP:ANV to report vandalism. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I was browsing the recent changes page, when I noticed that the user has had 4 warnings already, but vandalised again on StarStruck. Please can some admin please block the IP user, as this is his fifth warning.

XLK123 (talk) 06:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


FYI: Section merged to above. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:24, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Please can the user be blocked, as they have had five warnings, but still they are vandalising.

XLK123 (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@XLK123: Anonymous user has been blocked. For future reference, you can submit reports of vandalism over at WP:ANV. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:34, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Diverse Photos Added to DC-3 Article on 17 May Deleted This AM; Other Opinions, Please?[edit]

My photo edit of done on May 17 was deleted today because "Those images do not aid understanding of the subject" and I disagree. I can see deleting some, as there were a number added, but as I said in the edit comments:

  • Most photos went to the lower right, where there was adequate (wasted) white space,
  • Photos were more diverse than the rest (one from astern, one close in chopping the wings so the fuselage shows better, one fueling, etc.),
  • They were often cropped 16:9, so they can be used as Apple Wallpaper or PC Background (admittedly a minor point).


  • My photos showed DC-3s actually doing something - supporting skydiving - surely that's 'aiding to understand',
  • The first photo, placed to contrast the first pic below the infobox - an interior empty except for seats/aisle - better shows the scale of a DC-3's interior.

I've had my photos undone a couple of times and saw the point of view of the editor, but this time I disagree - they do aid understanding of the subject, IMHO, and they make the article more interesting, seeing photos rather than empty white space. In summary, Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject? And I suggest my photos aid understanding at least as much, if not more than, any of the existing photos. If there is an objection to the number of shots, I can reduce them. This is my first instance where I disagree with an editor and am unclear if this is even the best place to object, but I assume someone will tell me if I should do something differently. BrettA343 (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi BrettA343 and welcome to the Teahouse. Have you and the editor had a discussion on these images? That is what I usually recommend first so you can both understand and see each others point of view? Galendalia Talk to me CVU Graduate 19:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: As Galendalia kindly mentioned, discussion is a normal part of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I recommend that you have the discussion at the article talk page - Talk:Douglas DC-3 - in the hopes that multiple knowledgeable editors can be involved and come to a consensus as to which photos to use. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @Galendalia: and @GoingBatty:, I'll try the editor first and then the talk page. Note that I've added a bolded summation question above, for thought about the DC-3 article (plus as a general argument for other articles) and will refer to this Teahouse question to both editor and talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettA343 (talkcontribs) 05:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@BrettA343: You want to keep this question here? Ok:
Does white space on a page aid understanding of the subject better than photos of the subject?
Whether the photos are replacing "white space" or not depends on how the article is rendered. Wikipedia content can be rendered in a variety of ways. Obviously, this changes when you resize your window, it might be rendered in "mobile" mode, it can be rendered on various Wikipedia replicas.
While we don't focus heavily on the download size of a page, we should not completely ignore it. We also shouldn't ignore that additional "elements" in a page have all sorts of overhead, e.g. they make editing a page incrementally more complicated. But additional content should provide more than a "scintilla" of improvement (not necessarily a lot more than a scintilla, but a little more).
A lot of people like to go to rules (though I actually like to point out the rule that there aren't any "hard and fast" rules, but I'll offer the rule anyay). Here it is: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not. Refer to the section on media files.
Even though I do not feel so strongly about this particular rule, I shall continue. This article had 21 images, your change increased it to 28. But why stop there? There are literally thousands of DC-3 images available that could make this page more interesting or perhaps even more enlightening. How would you know where to stop?
To get on my soapbox, there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken. My perspective, though not a common one, is that we should be discouraging changes that aren't fixing significant problems, or alternatively, implementing solutions to reduce maintenance requirements (e.g. articles that will necessarily require edits due simply to the passage of time). So IMO, I would ask people not to spend their time on "subjective" improvements to articles. Making such changes may give editors a greater sense of satisfaction, but they really do not serve WP very well. Fabrickator (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Fujairah Airlines Douglas DC-3 Wheatley
Air India DC-3 at Heathrow
DC-3 in SoAfrica
Hi, @Fabrickator:... Thanks for your response. I note that while you re-posted my bolded question, there was no attempt at a direct answer, so I'll give you my take on it:
White space does NOT aid understanding of a subject better than photos of the subject, which can significantly aid understanding, as well as making the article more interesting to the reader.
For me, based on the initial complaint, that should render the subject closed and the photos should go back up. You also failed to address 4 of my 5 bullets in the OP, but brought up subjects that the deleting editor didn't seem to object to, moving the goalpost.
About your related point that "white space" depends on rendering, you've made a good point regarding smartphones. I submit, however, that on today's desktops, laptops and even tablets, resizing windows is largely beside the point. Sure, one can make windows so small that rendering becomes an issue (and then it's an issue for the 21 existing pics, too), but do we develop for all possible uses or what people generally do (and I suggest that that the norm is to browse Wikipedia with a reasonable-sized window, though I don't have a cite for that). I also don't know about Wikipedia replicas, except that Wikiredia renders my matrix photo galleries in left-justified columns, about 5 or 6 times the scrolling length of Wikipedia - do we really care what replicas do or don't do (it seems counter-productive as it creates another bonus for using WP.)?
Re Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia is not and media files, can I assume your point is that my file descriptions leave something to be desired. My descriptions are usually more informative (see my mountain photos) and I hope to have better descriptions for my DC-3 photos as of June 4 or so, when asked-for reference sources should arrive from my home to where I'm staying. I will note, however, that my descriptions are as good or better than many in Wikipedia, and even some in the DC-3 article (though again, mine will improve). If there are other objections, please specify. TIA.
I've got to say that I find your next paragraph - "How would you know when to stop?" - a tad silly in the context of my photos in this DC-3 article. No one's suggesting adding thousands except for your implication. All my photos have been deleted and your argument would be like me saying: "There are 21 photos up... maybe you should remove all of them. But how would you know when to stop? (Presumably when they're all down.)" Having no photos up is as silly as having thousands up, IMHO. Are you seriously suggesting someone might want "literally thousands of DC-3 images" on a page? If not, as I would hope, what are you trying to say, please? For context, you state that I added 7, but I also said that if there are too many (not an argument by the editor who took my photos down, of course), I can reduce the number of photos - how about 4 of mine and deleting 3 of the existing "DC-3 sitting on a tarmac" photos? Is that a doable compromise? I don't want thousands, I just wanted to add some photos to aid understanding of skydiving support and give a better 'feel' for the interior size than a totally empty plane gives. And heck, maybe add a little colour and people using a DC-3.
So I'll suggest that in light of this new criticism that 28 photos may be too many, I'm including photos on the right that I think are 'candidates for deletion' - a change is sometimes good to keep articles 'fresh' and different. Like mine (temporarily), these photos have little in the photo description, and I think unlike mine, they are more repetitive - too similar to each other and many of the existing images - DC-3s just sitting on the tarmac, doing nothing. The photo with multiple photographers in the article is to me, another candidate for deletion. What do you think?
Re you 'soapbox paragraph' and "there are literally hundreds of thousands of WP articles that are really, significantly broken", I did not know that. Is there a list somewhere? I hope you're having an OK time fixing them, but I know my strengths and desires won't have me fixing them at least until I run out of photos (and I don't think adding photos complicates editing much, either). And in contrast to you, I think my photos do serve WP well and I know others who agree with me. If the consensus at WP, however, agree with you, I'm likely out of here. I'm here to serve WP because it's a worthwhile project, IMO.
Finally, I get the sense that keeping the question here was a problem for you... I gave the question to the editor who deleted the photos almost 3 days ago and he hasn't responded - at this point I don't know if he will. Had he answered on his talk page, I likely would have responded to him there, but barring that, I thought there was context here, and here at least I got a response. Next time, I'll contact the editor first. BrettA343 (talk) 19:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bad format[edit]

Resolved: Table format has been fixed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I tried to add some information about the current town council of Oviedo, but the format is complicated. Vox (Spain) need to be colour-coded, and all the cells need to be inline. Undurbjáni (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Undurbjáni: Appears we had an edit conflict. Feel free to change the colours, but my diff should have fixed how the table looks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:40, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Will my page be approved?[edit]

Blocked: OP blocked and article has been salted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Will my article be approved? Article name or Draft:Sham Kumar MongerJustintype (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Justintype Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you were to submit your draft for review(you haven't), it would likely be rejected quickly, as you offer no independent reliable sources with significant coverage showing how this person meets Wikipedia's special definition of a notable person. Wikipedia is not like social media; it isn't just for telling about someone. Are you attempting to write about yourself? This is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, because people naturally write favorably about themselves. Please see the autobiography policy if you are attempting to write about yourself. Please understand that successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest thing to do on Wikipedia. It takes much time and practice. Please read Your First Article and use the new user tutorial for more information. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Justintype: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you put {{subst:AFC draft}} at the top of your draft, a reviewer will look at it. I will say that it will most likely be declined in its current state as there are not enough reliable sources and the draft does not demonstrate his notability as defined by Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
As a reviewer I can categorically say it would not be declined it would be REJECTED it is plainly unambiguous advertising or promotion, a self-written vanity page. Theroadislong (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, since we're talking of rejection, it is clearly not WP:G11 (since it's written in a neutral fashion - as explicitly defined at the CSD); though the only indication I can find about this author is from the page which states "Sham Kumar Monger is a Bhutanese self-published poet and novelist"... WP:A7 is not applicable either (since, although it falls short of meeting WP guidelines for notability, there is a credible statement as to why this person could in theory be notable); though if this were an article in it's current state it would surely fail AfD, and given the lack of coverage I can find this is either WP:TOOSOON or simply just a run-of-the-mill not-notable author. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Can't display image[edit]

FYI: Heading created by Tenryuu. 16:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

can't display image I follow the Help:Introduction to images with Wiki Markup/1, but on step 3, I don't know what to put before ".png". What should I put? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumsowee (talkcontribs)

@Bumsowee: I'm not too sure I understand your question. On step 3 it tells you to use the file name before the .png. Also, please refrain from abusing tildes. 4 are enough.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: I have realised what you meant by "unclear" and I will try to make it a bit clearer. I uploaded the image on Wikimedia Commons, but then it wasn't showing up as I'd uploaded it. I am busy making a "Languages of Central Asia" page on Wikipedia (other than the Redirect page), so I uploaded the image I wanted to use as someone else's work. But it wasn't showing up. What should I do? Also, Sorry about the tildes. I was clicking the Bumsowee (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC) button but they weren't showing up.
@Bumsowee: I'm not seeing any upload issues. You have successfully uploaded the image to Commons and I have added it to my sandbox at its full size. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( Tenryuu • 📝 ) 00:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Thank you. I think that I have to be more careful, I thought the name would come up in Wikimedia Commons. I am trying to put the image in a page I made called "languages of central asia" but it just comes up with an external link.
@Bumsowee: You can display it like this: [[File:Central asia lang map.png|thumb|400px|Map of languages spoken in [[Central Asia]]]]. But the language names of File:Central asia lang map.png are unreadable unless it's displayed far larger than 400px and we don't usually go beyond 400px per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Size. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@PrimeHunter: Thank you so much!!! Will continue with that.
@PrimeHunter: It says only Autoconfirmed users, Administrators and Confirmed Users can put the image into the page. Can you put it in? (Page name: Draft:Languages of Central Asia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bumsowee (talkcontribs)
@Bumsowee: That's a limitation on uploading images to the English Wikipedia. It doesn't affect already uploaded images or Wikimedia Commons. You wrote lowercase "asia" when you uploaded the image so you have to do the same when you use it. Just change "Asia" to "asia" in the code at Draft:Languages of Central Asia. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Access to deleted articles[edit]

Resolved: Only admins can see deleted content; public logs show time and reason for deletion. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, came across this article here on a blackhat site that claims that deleted articles are viewable by any editor via the deletion log. Is this correct? regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2020

@Atlantic306: No. Only administrators may see deleted articles. The deletion log will only show that the article was deleted and the reason for it. RudolfRed (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@RudolfRed and Atlantic306: If a page creation or edit hits a public filter, even if the content is now deleted, you are able to see the edit/page. Worse yet, administrators cannot simply revdel abuse filter log entries; the only way to prevent people from viewing abuse filter hits of a public filter requires oversight. With promotional/autobiographical/COI article creations especially, they very often trigger abuse filters, which though it makes it easier for non-admin IRC help channel helpers (like me) to explain to them why their article was deleted, it could be otherwise problematic if it's a copyright violation, attack page, etc. Best, Vermont (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

want to rescue my sources from deletion on wikimedia, any help please[edit]

dear all,

i was advised by wikimedia that the following will be deleted due to copyright violation, while these are articles from news papers and public logos for the yacht clubs: Affected:

And also:

can anyone help me here, much appreciate your assistance. Princesse Marissa (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Princesse Marissa Princesse Marissa (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Princesse Marissa: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reason the nominators are giving is: Historical newspapers and flags. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. In other words, you have not given the files the appropriate information as outlined in the image policy's required information. Please also make sure the images you are using meet Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE image use criteria if they are copyrighted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Princesse Marissa: Based on ... these are articles from news papers and public logos for the yacht clubs, I'm afraid you might misunderstand the meaning of copyright. Newspaper articles are copyrighted, as are most logos. Simply publishing something or displaying it publicly does not somehow remove copyright. See the various links that you have been given for the details, but generally, creative works are copyrighted by their creators for some period of time (usually decades) after creation or the creator's death, depending on the nature of the work and the applicable jurisdiction. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 04:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: I see, so there is nothing i can do here? Princesse Marissa (talk) 05:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Princesse Marissa, you have been advised correctly. Newspaper cuttings are covered by copyright, and you should not upload them to Wikimedia Commons (or to Wikipedia). However, you can cite them as sources in articles, giving the bibliographical details: name of newspaper, name of writer, publication date, page and column number, title of article. Maproom (talk) 07:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Maproom i already did that, you mean what is done now is correct even after wikimedia delete the uploaded file?

waiting for your feedback Princesse Marissa (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Princesse Marissa, I haven't checked all of them. But the way you have cited several issues of L'Orient Sports in Draft:Beirut Yacht Club is correct. There is no need to upload scans of the articles to Wikimedia Commons; and indeed, such scans will not be accepted there. (I think it would help to expand "local, regional and national regattas" to name those regattas which are cited in the sources you cite.) Maproom (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Maproom, thank you and well noted the valuable information, have a great day.Princesse Marissa (talk) 06:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is something 'upcoming' if there's zero evidence to support that it is under development anymore?[edit]

So, this came up as a joke on Twitter, but honestly it's actually kind of a fair question: If a video game shows no signs of being under development, at what point does it go from being 'upcoming' to 'canceled' in the opening sentence, "EXAMPLE is an upcoming video game developed by..." Do we have to wait for someone to acknowledge that it's officially canceled, or can we just infer that from no evidence of a game and the trademark being declared abandoned?

Article this question pertains too, specifically: Agent (video game)The Navigators (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Navigators: Welcome to the Teahouse! That's an interesting question. My take is that we summarize what reliable sources say, and we should not conduct original research or compose inferences based on the lack of sources. I welcome other editors to respond as well. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@The Navigators and GoingBatty: one would think Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games would have some kind of policy on this. My querying skills may need whetting, but so far, I have only found this section on a defunct page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Navboxes § What to avoid. I infer that games that have neither a definite release date nor significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources should not have a standalone article. This then neatly avoids the question: if the definite release date passes without fanfare, the article will simply say so; otherwise, it has enough sourcing, as GoingBatty said, for the article to say the game won't be released. As for Agent, I'm wondering what's left after we filter out the press releases and pieces based on them. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Rotideypoc41352: Sorry I wasn't clear. I am NOT advocating that we make a statement saying the game has been cancelled or won't be released. We should only report what reliable sources state. We might have to tweak the language (e.g. maybe change "Agent is to be set" to "Agent was announced to be set"), but a lack of statements doesn't mean we should guess at the current state. GoingBatty (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@GoingBatty and Rotideypoc41352: I posted on the WikiProject Video games talk page, asking for some assistance, and left links directing them to come here and chat with us.--The Navigators (talk) 21:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
This is a tricky question when it comes to Agent. Given that the trademark is expired and no updates have been given, we should either remove the "upcoming" and confirm that it appears to be in limbo, or outright call it cancelled with citations to back up the claim. I can't recall any at the moment, but there have been other cases of games just vanishing into limbo like Agent and being classed as cancelled with suitable sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Point of order: There was a discussion about this on the article's talk page back in October 2019. See here. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I apologize for missing the fact this had been brought up on the talk page previously.--The Navigators (talk) 02:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Do make sure to exhaust our (that is, WP:VG's as well as WP's own) RS, as I came up with this Feb 2019 article that's not yet included [1], and based on how Polygon talks of the project, I would treat it as cancelled rather than upcoming but making sure to justify it with Polygon's rationale in the body (that the teams behind it have been moved to other projects, assets maybe used on other projects, etc.) Should the game actually be revived we can fix, but everyone else in the world (that is a reliable source) is treated it as canned. This is not like a development hell game ala Duke Nukem Forever where we were told for years and years "its coming". --Masem (t) 01:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Is it worth taking this article to AFD (Articles for Deletion)? Other than Polygon, I don't see significant coverage from non-press release-y publications. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You could consider using the word "projected", which does not imply whether or not the game will ever be released, just that it hasn't been yet. Maproom (talk) 07:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Maproom, ProtoDrake, GoingBatty, and Rotideypoc41352:Maproom, You could be onto something there, or maybe "proposed"?--The Navigators (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@The Navigators: "proposed", "projected", or "announced" are all reasonable candidates. I prefer the third out of those myself. After all, it was announced. In fact, that's all that happened really. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
I'd just use "unreleased". It's both accurate and doesn't really imply it's been canceled. The game's unlikely to come out at this point so I think "unreleased" would convey that it's probably not coming out, but also not officially canceled. JOEBRO64 00:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted a maintenance page in another language, will I be banned?[edit]

Resolved: Accidental edit on Wikidata was reverted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I deleted a maintenance page about speedy deletions in another language thinking that it was a language that was set on my account and not languages for the article. Is there a consequence and is there a way to reverse the changes? Capsulecap (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Capsulecap Depends on the language. They're technically a separate project than us, so their policies may differ. You can't restore the page? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
What page are you referring to? You only seem to have edits to the English Wikipedia, so you don't seem to be referring to another language Wikipedia. Almost all changes here are reversible. – Thjarkur (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Capsulecap: You Global contributions show only a single non-en-wiki edit (see this edit to Wikidata). I have taken the liberty of reverting it for you. Hope that was what you wanted? In future, it would save everyone a lot of trouble if you thought about providing a link or a diff to the page that you are concerned about. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Yes. Thank you for reversing the edit!
Capsulecap (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Capsulecap: You're welcome. You could have reverted it yourself, of course - just find the diff and click 'undo' and provide an edit summary to explain why (e.g. "self-revert") Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata issue...wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat the right place, or not?[edit]

Hello Teahouse. I'm not really a new editor, just a little confused about something. I requested a change to a Wikidata entry, wikidata:Q210499 ("bulletin board system"), at wikidata:Wikidata:Project_chat#Cannot_change_Q210499. However it's gone ignored, while many questions asked later were answered. It seems like perhaps such changes ought to be discussed at enwiki, or jawiki? Or what? Or am I just impatient? :-) Psiĥedelisto (talkcontribs) 03:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Psiĥedelisto. I see a reply to your post at Wikidata, two days before this post here. In any case, I can't see how this is anything do to with en-wiki. --ColinFine (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

People can't understand me[edit]

Someday, they will understand me. (talk) 05:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a question? As far as I’ve checked, all your edits have been unconstructive. I checked and you have even edited random IP editors’ talk pages for no reason. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with draft[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Kanza Javed

Hi, can someone help me with my wikipedia draft? they keep rejecting it and I am not understanding clearly why Saad Haseeb (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Saad Haseeb: Welcome to the Teahouse. As the reviewer pointed out, you have not provided sufficient reliable, independent sources for your subject, nor have you cited them to sentences. Wikipedia primarily focuses on using secondary sources, not primary ones like interviews. If you need a guide on referencing, see WP:EASYREFBEGIN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Note, Saad Haseeb, that sources need not be in English. If you can find any Urdu sources on Kanza, please feel free to message me on my talk page and I'll see what I can do to help. Best, M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing content from article[edit]

FYI: Heading created by Tenryuu. 07:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

What can I remove from my article. Can you help me? Editorlanpao (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Editorlanpao: Please specify which one you're referring to. Draft:Lukanand Kshetrimayum, which has been rejected by reviewers, or Romi Meitei, of which you made a draft and decided to merge into the preexisting article? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


Once I have vastly improved a start class article how does it get a higher rating? Robbiegibbons (talk) 08:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robbiegibbons. If you're referring to Wikipedia:Content assessment, then for the most part this is just an unofficial type of assessment in which pretty much any editor can reassess an article and update its status if they believe the relevant criteria are being met. Some WikiProjects have slightly different assessment criteria; so, if you'd like a member of a particular WikiProject to reassess an article, you can post a request on the project's talk page or check the project's main page for information on assessing articles. You could also request a WP:PR for a more general assessment by another editor.
If you're referring to a more formal assessment like WP:GA or WP:FA, then there is a set process that the article will need to navigate through which involves being formally assessed be editors who are experienced in doing such things. There are specific criteria that need to be met for each and articles are generally only upgraded to GA or FA status when there is a consensus to do so. In other words, you cannot just decide to declare an article to be GA or FA on your own; you need to submit it for review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Personally, after I have improved (?) an article I do not upgrade the class rank. I figure someone else will. Given what you have accomplished at Eureka Flag, you could consider nominating for GA. You may consider removing the "Derivatives and variants section" as distantly tangent to the topic of the article. David notMD (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Request to delete an article[edit]

I have an article that I had created more than about a month ago, and I would like to delete it because it needs more sources and a big expansion in informations. I do not know how to delete it so; please who would do it if you can do it Thank you. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mr. James Dimsey. If you've been pretty much the only editor trying to improve the draft, you can request that it being speedily deleted per speedy deletion criterion G7. If others, however, have also been involved in working on the draft, then you might want to discuss things with them first to actually see if they're no longer interested in trying to improve it. There's really no deadlines when it comes to drafts and as long as someone is working on it and there are no really serious problems such as WP:COPVIO or WP:BLP violations to address, drafts are generally left as is for someone to try and continue to improve. The only thing you will need to worry about is whether nobody works on improving the draft for at least six months because then it might considered abandoned and thus eligible for deletion per speedy deletion criterion G13.
Have you tried asking for help with the draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sudan? Perhaps some member of that WikiProject can take a look at the draft and help figure out whether there's any potential for it to someday become an article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

New to Editing Wikipedia - First Submission rejected[edit]

Hi There,

I'm very new to the world of Wikipedia and I had an article rejected about 5/6 months ago. I haven't had time to look at it, but am hoping to revisit it and get it published.

The reason for rejection was: The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. If someone could advise what I need to do to fix this I'd be really grateful! The page is: Draft:Willie Hamilton (academic)

Thanks, Ciaran CiaranJones7 (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

CiaranJones7 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. If you follow the link in the message,(click "Referencing for beginners") it will take you to the page that explain how to cite sources. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
CiaranJones7 Hi, to be more precise - some of your references did you link directly to external websites via "Add-a-link", what you should do is take those urls and insert them as cites, in the editor "Cite + Add a Citation + Automatic" and in this dialog box you paste the URL. After modifying those references I am pretty sure that your draft will be accepted. If you have any questions feel free to ask. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
CiaranJones7 Hi, to be more precise - some of your references did you link directly to external websites via "Add-a-link", what you should do is take those urls and insert them as cites, in the editor "Cite + Add a Citation + Automatic" and in this dialog box you paste the URL. After modifying those references I am pretty sure that your draft will be accepted. If you have any questions feel free to ask. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi CiaranJones7. The reason your draft was declined seems, at least to me, to be a bit confusing since there really is no minimum number of inline citations that a draft is required to have before it can be upgraded to article status as explained in WP:NEXIST. So, I think what the AFC reviewer was trying to get at was that he/she felt that the sources you did cite weren’t sufficient to establish the subject’s Wikipedia notability. Inline citations do for sure help with the verification of article content per WP:RSCONTEXT, but having a certain number of them in the article doesn’t really make or break a draft when it comes to Wikipedia notability. It’s the subject’s Wikipedia notability (or it’s lack thereof) which typically matters more, and it’s generally the quality of the sources cited, not the number of them cited which helps establish notability.
Have you tried to seek clarification about the draft from the AFC reviewer who declined it? Even though it has been a few months since it was declined, you might still try asking for a little more specific feedback. The relevant notability guidelines applicable in this case would seem to be WP:BIO and WP:PROF. If you’re unable to connect with the AFC reviewer, perhaps try asking for help at WP:AFCHD or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia for input.
Now some things I did notice about the draft which you can fix are WP:BADDATE, MOS:SECTIONCAPS, MOS:DOCTOR and WP:SURNAME, but these are relatively minor and shouldn’t impact whether the draft will be accepted. Another thing has to do with the image used in the infobox. You uploaded the image to Commons as your “own work”, but the exif data for the file seems to attribute the file to another person and states it was taken about seven years prior to the you provided in the file’s description. So, if you didn’t take this photo yourself, then you’re not really its copyright holder and thus can’t upload it to Commons as your “own work”. If that’s the case, please look at c:COM:OTRS#If you are NOT the copyright holder for reference. — Marchjuly (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
331dot CommanderWaterford Marchjuly Thank you for all of your advice this is all really helpful - I think I found a fairly large oversight on my part with references to winning paper of the year twice - I hadn't put anything to back this up. I also think I've tided up the WP:BADDATE, MOS:SECTIONCAPS, MOS:DOCTOR and WP:SURNAME issues. Really appreciate all of your time. — CiaranJones7 (talk) 13:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning related to the quality of sources[edit]

Dear Wikipedians,

I am working on en:Christine Holgate article. I received a warning about using poor quality sources. Would you mind checking the article and giving me advice? If you notice something, I can reply to me and I will improve based on your suggestions. Thank you! Quinndo (talk) 11:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

As article exists, perhaps better to post comment on the Talk page of the article, to see if editors with interest and knowledge of the article respond. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Quinndo - indeed it would be a good idea to ask on the articles talk page but nevertheless I am wondering who gave you this advice? I had a quick view on the article and there are some references which could be of better sources but most of your cites are IMHO absolutely okay.CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @David notMD: and @CommanderWaterford:. The article's creator helped me fix those errors. Here is the notice (maybe not a warning) I received: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page." Is it normal to receive this notice? Thank you! Quinndo (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
You should treat this more like advice, it is definitely not a warning. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
That is an edit notice placed on most/all WP:BLPs to inform editors of the page, not specifically you, about our BLP policy. It is not there because of any issues with the current article. Best, Vermont (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference/Citation formats[edit]

When using the visual editor to reference something you can click on the "cite" button at the top of the page and it gives you a bunch of options. When choosing between the manual options you're given the option between: Website, Book, News, Journal, and Basic Form. My question is:

When would you ever choose Basic form and if someone else cited something using the Basic form while also including a URL or book is it appropriate to re-cite the source as a website or book?

For a specific situation, I was looking to add citation information to this page: Reference number 6 appears to be in basic form but there is a link to a google book. So could I remove the reference and re-cite it as a book? TipsyElephant (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@TipsyElephant: Welcome to the Teahouse! Most of the time, I use one of the cite templates, while some people like the flexibility that the basic form provides. Per WP:CITESTYLE, since many of the other references on the page use one of the cite templates, I think it would be fine to use {{cite book}} for reference #6, as long as all the data currently visible remains visible with the template. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion[edit]

I'm confused at why this is proposed for deletion? Abbotstown (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

If you click the link in the notice that says "this articles entry" it takes you to the page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stay_Until_Tomorrow_(Film)) where the reason is listed by the person who added it with the reason "A non-notable film with no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM." Mlepisto (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Note that most of the links your google search throws up, Abbotstown are not independent, reliable sources. The Variety review probably is, but I'm not sure any others in the first page are. You can contribute to the discussion, but please read the "primers" mentioned in the box on the discussion page first, especially Help:My article got nominated for deletion!, --ColinFine (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


Hello, thanks for inviting me to the group. I would very much like to add citations to a page I am creating but struggling to do that in an effective way. Any advice would be hugely appreciated. (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey IP editor and welcome to the Teahouse. The first step is to find sources (could be on Google) which meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Then, cite them properly in the article - a beginner's guide as how to do so can be found at WP:ERB. Feel free to follow up with further questions. Hillelfrei talk 14:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mobile homepage[edit]

They finally fixed the mobile homepage, it's supercool now. It came out of the blue for me though. Anyone knows where the discussion took place? I'm not complaining, I really like it. Just wanted to read up on the process. TryKid[dubiousdiscuss] 15:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably NOT about Mobile home. David notMD (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah it's about TryKid[dubiousdiscuss] 05:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipoll #1[edit]

Should we make a option to disable accounts ( like Fandom )?

Yes or No Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Another Wiki User the 2nd: Welcome to the Teahouse, but this is not a place to run polls, and you appear to have already asked the same question at WP:VPIL (though you did forget to sign your post there, which you might like to think about fixing). Nick Moyes (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC).  
We can already disable accounts if they are disruptive in any way. If you mean delete accounts, no, I don’t think there should be such an option due to the issues with attributing authorship of Wikipedia (of course, I think there should be a way to delete vandals’ accounts, but then again, implementing it would be hard). By the way, polls are generally not the best way to gauge community opinion, as a horde of not-so-well-informed people may vote in one way without proper knowledge of the topic. Consensus is the way we settle disputes and conduct discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 16:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Another Wiki User the 2nd (talkcontribs) 16:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Biography page and conflict of interest guidelines[edit]

Hi - Thanks for encouraging questions. My sister and I had prepared a page documenting my father's role in early rock climbing and ski mountaineering in Southern California, the US Southwest, the Bugaboos, and Wisconsin prior to WW II. It's similar in nature to the active Wikipedia page on Glen Dawson (they were close friends and did many climbs together). From what I am reading about conflict of interest I'm getting the feeling that we should abandon this plan and find another place to post our page. Is this what you would advise? It's a completely factual page with all statements in it documented. My father died in 1996 so obviously he would not benefit in any way from posting the page, nor would we. We just thought that this piece of history would be important to add to Wikipedia.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated. We have spent a good deal of time compiling this page and obviously should have taken a closer look at Wikipedia's guidelines before doing so. We would be very sad if it were not possible to post to Wikipedia but we would totally understand. Thanks in advance. Donna Dmbrinton (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Donna, and welcome to the Teahouse. You would indeed have a conflict of interest in writing about your father, but you are not forbidden from doing so: you should use the articles for creation mechanism, so that you develop it in draft, and then submit it for review. There are two things that may be difficult for you in writing an article about your father (please don't think of it as a "page": Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and consists of neutrally-written, well sourced articles), One is keeping the wording neutral - a Wikipedia article should contain no judgmental words (positive or negative) unless they are directly quoted from a cited independent source. The other is that things you know should not go into the article unless they are corroborated by a reliable published source. This can be frustrating (especially if the published sources contain information which you know is inaccurate) but it is a core policy of Wikipedia: since anybody may edit it, the only way a reader can be sure of the content is if they can find it in a published source (ideally, a source cited in the Wikipedia article). It's also important that most information come from sources wholly independent of your father: a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may come from non-independent sources, such as his own works, or websites of organisations he belonged to; but in order for an article to be accepted at all there must be enough independent reliable-published material about him to ground an article (the Wikipedia jargon for this is that he be notable - which doesn't mean quite the same as its normal meaning). I hope this answers you: please come back here if you have any further questions. I suggest also looking at your first article. --ColinFine (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Editing On Wikipedia[edit]

hi.i would like to know how to edit on wikipedia Beatsbymellow (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Beatsbymellow! See WP:TUTORIAL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

How May I claim Mason County Washington State[edit]

How May I claim Mason County Washington State? Victorianajayme (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Victorianajayme: This isn't really a question for Wikipedia, unless you mean "how may you claim the article titled Mason County, Washington", in which case, you don't per WP:OWN. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Victorianajayme: If you mean the article, you may not. See WP:OWN and also WP:COI and WP:PAID. RudolfRed (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a wikipedia page[edit]

I am trying to create a wikipedia page for myself. I put it together but it has USER in the title of it after I published it. How can I make this public? Carla C. Johnson (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Carla C. Johnson: Welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is not a place for just anyone to have an article on them; it is not a social media site like LinkedIn. Also, writing about yourself is strongly discouraged. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Carla C. Johnson. The page User:Carla C. Johnson has been written and formatted as if it was a Wikipedia article. That is not the proper use of a Wikipedia user page, a user page should be to inform other users of Wikipedia about you as a Wikipedia editor. User pages often include lists of articles created or worked on, or ones the user plans to work on, Wikipedia achievements, views about Wikipedia policy and activities, and the like. They may contain brief biographical information for context. They may contain information about a user's interests and skills, to help in judging that user's contributions. A User page should not be a biographical article about the user. See WP:USERPAGE for mo0re detail.
The page User:Carla C. Johnson could be moved to Draft:Carla C. Johnson, and there an attempt to create a valid Wikipedia article could be made. I am not sure, from as quick look, whether it would pass the Wikipedia standard of notability, as described in our guideline on the notability of people. Multiple (usually at least three) Independent professionally published reliable sources that each discuss the subject in some detail, beyond a mere passing mention (usually several paragraphs each) are the most commo0n way to establish notability. See also our General notability guideline. And do read our guideline on autobiographies and on conflict of interest.
Given all that, would you like the page mo0ved to the Draft space? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Biography for an Architect[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Camilo Rebelo

Camilo Rebelo I would like to ask why my submission got declined. I am an assistant of Architect. Camilo Rebelo and we are trying to create his Wikipedia biography since he as an architect and artist did a lot of works and contributions... Could you please tell me how to do it. P.S All the information written by me was provided by the Architect it self. CR1972 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@CR1972: Welcome to the Teahouse. I have pointed other interested readers to the correct page. The problem that GoingBatty saw was that there were no cited references; Wikipedia articles require reliable, independent sources. The problem that I see is that the subject is involved in writing the draft, and you are affiliated with the subject, in which case everyone involved in creating the draft is strongly recommended to read WP:COI and WP:AUTO, the former of which applies to people related to the subject and has a vested interested in an article being created for them on Wikipedia, and the latter being aimed toward Rebelo himself as writing about oneself is strongly discouraged. Since you are an assistant to Rebelo you should also read WP:PAID, as restrictions become much tighter if monetary exchange is suspected. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:20, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Url help.[edit]

Please tell me how to include a URL in my page. Lelandken (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lelandken and welcome to the Teahouse. First of all, you do not seem to have any contributions to Wikipedia except for asking this question. For that reason, I assume when you say "my page", you don't mean a page you created, you mean a Wikipedia article about yourself. If that is the case, please see WP:AUTO#IFEXIST before editing it. URLs (links to external websites) are generally not included in Wikipedia articles except for the "External Links" section, some infobox parameters, and some other exceptions. Instead, if you would like to add a link to a word (and the word should be linked per MOS:UL), you can add a Wikilink, a link to the word's Wikipedia article. Feel free to ask if you would like further clarification. Regards, Hillelfrei talk 18:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
@Lelandken: You are also welcome to include a simple link to your personal home page, although you should not surround it with any promotional language. However, if a link to your home page is the only thing on your userpage, this may be seen as an attempt at self-promotion. Please feel free to learn more at our guideline on user pages. For help on wikitext markup, please feel free to take a look at Help:Cheatsheet. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

help with making a wikipedia page[edit]

I have a few questions. One, how do I create a wikipedia page? I have also done research on wikipedia writers but i'm not sure if they are a scam considering the high prices. Do you know of any legit wikipedia writers who are credible? or is that not a thing and it's more worth it to do it yourself? I would greatly appreciate help from anybody. 2001:579:7180:28:C806:38EA:8C11:C9BE (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Lola keller 2001:579:7180:28:C806:38EA:8C11:C9BE (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Lola. I'd be interested to know what prices you've seen? But, to be perfectly frank, no amount of money is ever going to get a Wikipedia article about someone if that person is not notable in the first place. Never be duped into thinking you can pay someone to write about you here - it really is not 'a thing'. We are all volunteers - apart from a few bad apples. If you meet our Notability Criteria, in due course another person will no doubt want to write about you. There are not always benefits to it either, see WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. To create an article on another topic, follow this shortcut: WP:YFA. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Lola. I believe that some professional editors are legit, more are scammers, and many, while not outright scammers, promise more than they can in fact deliver. As Nick Moyes said above, no amount of money spent (or of good writing) will get an article about a no0n-notable person (or topic) to stay around long.If the topic is indeed notable, a professional might help with putting an article together, but interesting an experienced volunteer editor will probably get better results for free, if an editor's interest can be attracted. Note that Wikipedia articles are not "pages" in the sense that social media has "pages". A Wikipedia article summarizes what published reliable sources have written about the topic, mostly independent sources. If there are no good sources, there will not be an article. If there are sufficient good sources, than an article could be created, as a rule. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Peer review[edit]

So, I figured out how to file the peer review, but now I have another question. What do I do now? Do I just wait? Thanks in advance. Stay safe and well, --Total Eclipse 2017 (My profile | My contribs | speak to me) 19:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Headline "Chicago" more leads to huge metro area - no reference to Cook County nor 6 county area.[edit]

I'm resident of River Grove, Illinois. Located in Cook County. I'm age 78, degreed Elecrical Engineer.

Growing up I heard: Population Numbers: Chicago - 3.5 Million Cook County - 5 Million All 6 Surrounding Counties 9 Million Entire State of Illinois - 11 Million

So, I wondered why so much contention tween "US and THEM". LET'S SUCCEED FROM ILLINOIS!

Your article is lacking but I loved your:

"assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith". "Stay cool!"

or my mother's: "It's ok to disagree, but not to be disagreeable"

Respectfully Submitted; TOCAR Tocar2662 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tocar2662: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question to ask about using or editing Wikipedia? I'm surmising that this may have something to do with the Chicago article? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 21:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Failure of Contents to Float at Left of Infobox[edit]

Resolved: Issue resolved with this diff. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Rmhadsell/sandbox

The problem of a number of blank lines below the Table of Contents box does not involve the initial text (Carolyn Lee Jones is an American jazz-pop vocalist who . . .). The problem is blank lines below the Table of Contents box, before the heading "Biography" appears. Biography and a few lines below it should wrap against the left side of the Infobox. What do I need to change in my Sandbox to make this happen? Rmhadsell (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Rmhadsell (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rmhadsell: Welcome back to the Teahouse. I made a change; is that what you were looking for? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Your change took care of the problem. I wish that this and other simple problems were anticipated in a user-friendly users manual for Wikipedia. I have retired from a career in online training, much of which dealt with training in use of software. Thanks. Rmhadsell (talk) 23:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rmhadsell: Glad to hear it's all working out now. For future reference, you do not need to manually call for the table of contents; the software will automatically insert one when the article has at least 4 headings. There are multiple sources of help out here on Wikipedia that mention specific things, but consolidating each minor tidbit into one resource would probably be new-user unfriendly. Face-wink.svgTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

If I try to edit a semi-protected page, how does this work?[edit]

I have tried to add an image on a page that is semi-protected. I am not able to ascertain whether I qualify to be able to edit it and as the image I added has not appeared, I do not know whether I have done it incorrectly or whether it is awaiting some sort of approval and 3rd person intervention. How do I find out what is happening? Many thanks. Twotonetoo (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Twotonetoo: If it was this edit, the problem is that you added a single layer of square brackets where none were needed (as well as a thumbnail tag that wouldn't have mattered). Notice that the other entries in the gallery don't have those. I've fixed it. Also, you need to stop marking all your edits as minor. Minor edits are very small changes like punctuation fixes. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

copyvio of quotes and wrong ISBN[edit]

Resolved: ISBN is properly formatted and quotes have been integrated into the prose. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I have two questions: first, the copyvio detector keeps picking up two quotes and saying they are violations, but they are blockquotes in the text. The rest of the quotes are fine. It's just those two. They were put in by the previous writer, but they're good quotes, and I can't find anything wrong with them. What do I do?

Second, I have referenced a book, copied the ISBN correctly from the book, and it keeps telling me the ISBN is wrong: "check the value"! It's what the book says, I swear! I've redone it multiple times! What do I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: "Check the value" doesn't mean the the ISBN is for the wrong book, it means there's some sort of formatting problem (which suggests that's also the case with the blockquotes). I'd need to see the code to say what's going wrong. Is this at the article History of Christian thought on persecution and tolerance? I'm not seeing any formatting errors in that article in its current state. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson. Yes! That's the article. I removed the ISBN from the reference entirely until I could figure out how to fix it. It's in the ordinary form--978-1- with 5 numbers then 3 then 1. Let me see if I can call up the book and show you--if I can remember... I'll be back--in the meantime, what about the quotes? They are the two quotes in the Contemporary Catholic thought section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Here's the book: Frend, W. H. C. (2014). Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church: A Study of Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock.:xi. It's on googlebooks at [2]. I've typed in that isbn enough I've memorized it. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson Are you unable to figure this out too? I am certainly stumped. Well, at least it makes me feel less stupid if you are as well. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, Jenhawk777. I haven't looked at the copyvio problem, but would my edit here resolve your ISBN issues? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Tenryuu Well, I don't see any RED anywhere, so apparently the answer is YES YES YES!! You are clearly brilliant! What did you do that I couldn't see? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Gasp! The numbers you used aren't the same as the ones in the book--how did you find the right ones? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: The numbers you used aren't the same as the ones in the book--how did you find the right ones? I went to the Google Books link you posted and clicked "About this book", which is where the information about the book is usually found. There were two ISBNs, so I took a shot with the one you mentioned earlier. If it's not the correct one try replacing the numbers I added to the isbn parameter but keep the hyphens exactly where they are.
What did you do that I couldn't see? You can click on the link I posted ("my edit here") to check the WP:DIFF of my edit to see what I added. Ian.thomson suggested a formatting issue, so I checked the documentation (hint) for {{cite book}} and looked for an example as to how to properly input the ISBN. I didn't find your attempt at adding it so I can't make a comparison.
What is this copyvio detector you speak of? I haven't heard of it. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
The copyvio detector is here: [3] It's from WP. It keeps telling me two of the quotes are copy violations.
On the isbn, I used the book itself where there was only the one number. I had no idea the "about this book" could or would have anything different. Now I know! :-) Thank you so very much. I will remember this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I've been teaching Japanese toddlers the word "no" for the past several hours. @Jenhawk777: The (coding) problem with the supposed copyvio is that you didn't put it in <blockquote>blockquote tags like this</blockquote>. In the case of the Ratzinger quote, you don't have to do anything. If someone tries to argue that it's a copyvio, first tell them to stop acting like a bot, look at the actual quote, and read MOS:QUOTE if they still have doubts. For the Monter quote, it's fine as is but maybe could use some sort of introduction like 'Monter writes,' ' notes' or whatever. Those particular suggestions would break the prose somewhat but then you'd be in the clear. Situations like these are why we don't have a bot going after any bit of text that pops up on Earwig's copyvio detector (wonderful tool though it is). Ian.thomson (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ian.thomson Teaching any toddler the meaning of the word no is a little like teaching a pig to sing isn't it? You don't really accomplish much beyond annoying the pig. They grow through it--of course it shows up again at 15. Something to look forward to. :-). Those quotes are leftovers from the original author of the page I'm working on, and I'm sure at least one has an intro like "Monter writes" and blockquotes, but I will check and add those if not, and be prepared to say 'don't be a bot' otherwise. I find that approach particularly well suited to me! Thank you for all your help. You can cloe me out! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Ah but the upside to these toddlers is that I'm not their parent so either they go "that huge foreigner might eat me if he says 'no' too often" or I get to throw them back at their parents at the end of the day. @Jenhawk777: The Monter quote that isn't introduced includes the phrase "papally appointed inquisitors." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: Just for the record, the problem appears to be that the ISBN is actually mis-printed in the book, swapping the 7th and 8th digits ("65" instead of "56").[4] The cite template tries to verify the "check digit" (the last digit – 4), which fails (as it's supposed to). Also FYI, regarding the hyphenation / grouping of digits, ISBN says, Figuring out how to correctly separate a given ISBN is complicated, because most of the parts do not use a fixed number of digits. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1:@Ian.thomson:. Thank you! You guys are wonderful. I have always been able to dependably find help here, whatever I have needed. Toddlers of the world beware! Efficient intelligent leadership is at hand! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How to proceed without sources[edit]

Resolved: {{Update}} template and related articles/WikiProjects suggested to effect action. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I would appreciate input on my comment at the talk page for Talk:George_Town_Airport which is closed and has been for some time. Thank you. Mlepisto (talk) 22:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, we follow the sources; when what we know contradicts the sources, we simply have to wait for the sources to catch up. Wikipedia is not news, so information is allowed to get outdated when there are no sources to keep an article up to date. If you are quite certain sources exist even though you don't have one, you could also tag the article with {{update}} so someone else may update it, or at least know the information may be outdated. Also, if/when you don't get an answer on an article's talk page, you can notify the wikiprojects that the article belongs to, or another related article that gets a lot of editor attention asking if anyone would take a look. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Usedtobecool I understand about the sources, which is why I asked to learn more about what would be appropriate. The update tag and other ways to proceed are helpful. Thanks! Mlepisto (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

New article about a scientist for the Women in Science project - by a first-time Wikipedia writer-dude[edit]


I just wrote my very first Wikipedia article about a scientist, and did it in response to this Women in Science project:

My draft which I just submitted for review is here:

I had a couple questions. 1. I confirmed that Mildred Hoge Richards, who my article is about, was missing a Wikipedia article in the first link. If/when my article is approved, how do I connect my article to the people doing the WiR project? 2. How do I get feedback on my article before the 5 weeks it takes for approval - I am sure I am not doing things exactly right and would appreciate slightly quicker feedback/help on my article before it gets turned down a month+ from now.

Many thanks!!

First-time-Wiki-Dude Ohiram (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Ohiram; it appears someone has answered you over at the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Placing a set of different references all under the same title[edit]

FYI: Split by Tenryuu. 00:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone here be prepared to actually make this possible to do? I'll try and show you what I mean:

[ref] Cite web, url=1, url=2, url=3, title=same, work/website=1, work/website=2, work/website=3, accessdate=1, accessdate=2, accessdate=3 [/ref]

The same title for multiple citations. If all citations were accessed on the same date, then obviously you would just use one access date for all citations. Make sense? The reason I'm suggesting this is because it can provide additional verification to both references and a particular source of information. 29cwcst (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@29cwcst: Are you suggesting a template that cites multiple sources which report the same article? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Not exactly, but potentially. It's for multiple different sources reporting the same information that, coincidentally, happen to share the same title. It can also help to reinforce that a particular source is true by citing more than one source specifically. — 29cwcst (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
29cwcst, that would be misleading IMO, and so quite unlikely to happen. In any case, it would require a community-wide discussion; one or a few editors can't make it happen. But you could use citation bundling. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Bundling seems to be used occasionally for this (I prefer the bullet style, which clearly separates the cites). However, it has the disadvantage that, if you or someone else does some work on the article and finds they want to cite just one of those sources that has been bundled, it has to be unbundled, which can be challenging to do correctly for less-experienced editors. I generally don't bundle for that reason. If you have a specific need, you can always create a template that you can use to create the bundled cite. Not sure how the community feels about creating a template-namespace template to do it – probably best to create it in your userspace and subst it. Maybe there's something already out there? A search and/or mention at WP:VPT might be worthwhile. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: Thanks for the ping and the information, but I'm assuming you meant that for 29cwcst. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Usedtobecool: I could, but it appears as though every citation bundled still comes under a respective title and I'm just looking to title multiple citations once. I'll try asking around but, like you mentioned, I'll probably get turned down like always. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@AlanM1: Thanks very much, I'll give it a try. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Even though you're probably right, I think Alan was pointing out some reasons why I'm proposing this kind of citation style. — 29cwcst (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


FYI: Heading created by Tenryuu. 00:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved: User has been told to use their new account instead of the blocked one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

i have been blocked, please help LetsgomooN (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@LetsgomooN: If you are also Zee50, please abandon this account and go back to your other account and talk with admins. This account would be considered WP:EVASION and will look unfavourable on any unblock requests you have created. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Looking for advice on article: merge, delete, or expand?[edit]

Hi, The_Ancient_Science_of_Numbers just appeared on the Community Portal as an article in need of editing. In looking over it, I'm not convinced it meets notability guidelines as a stand-alone article--there are a few references that indicate the book has been occasionally cited, but its author isn't notable enough to meet notability guidelines (his work hasn't produced a substantial impact, as far as I can tell). I'd like to nominate the article for restructuring, but I'm not sure what category I should nominate it in or even if it deserves nomination for deletion/merger/something else. Can someone give me guidance? (As the choice of forum suggests, I'm very new to Wikipedia and still learning about the encyclopedia's processes. Any advice you can offer is much appreciated!) KilimAnnejaro (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, KilimAnnejaro. Thank you for drawing attention to the article The_Ancient_Science_of_Numbers. Currently this article cites only three sources. Two are blogs and are not considered reliable sources. The third is a very brief passing mention, that does not even support the statement for which it is cited. I find no other significant mentions online, and I intend to nominate this article for deletion. I so not think the topic is notable.. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Reshma Ghimire[edit]

I have removed many external links from the biography, there are only 3 external references and 1 youtube link. Please help me i still get " draft may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion because in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic." error. Draft:Reshma_Ghimire Rupakgyawali (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rupakgyawali: Welcome to the Teahouse. Unfortunately it seems your article has been deleted. You may try asking the deleting admin (Athaenara) if it would be okay to do a WP:REFUND of the draft to be worked on. Please review WP:NPOV before doing so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Reshma Ghimire[edit]

FYI: Merged with above section. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

can i paste all the content of deleted article with removing every external links in new draft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rupakgyawali (talkcontribs) 03:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rupakgyawali: The major issue right now is the deleted content, not the references. Removing only the external links is not going to solve the problem. Please do not make another section for a related question like this.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


FYI: Heading created by Tenryuu. 04:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not angry but i'm disappointed with the decision you have made on behalf wikipedia. ! respected your organization very highly until this day and you have hurt the team. As captain of 3rds football I will be expressing to the boys that wikipedia have done us dirty. I will not be recommending your services to anyone else. King Regards, Skip Yianniswiki123 (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Yianniswiki123: I'm sorry to hear that the decision "we" (whom that is referring to remains up to debate) made on behalf of Wikipedia disagreed with you. If you are referring to Draft:3rds Footy, it is devoid of content and not suitable for its own article in its current state. If you wish to discuss this on here, that is fine, but we would ask you to refrain from making personal attacks like you have done almost a year ago. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Cannot understand what you are upset about, as there is no content in the declined draft other than "3rds". David notMD (talk) 11:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Visual Editor help[edit]

Resolved: OP directed to their Preferences. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is visual editor of wiki a software that we need to download.? Is it a built in tool of Wiki? How to use it? Edit source brings the markup editor right? I m running Linux? Is there any good tutorial on how to install it? Also visual editor page doesn't have \=\= installation \=\= (escaping =)

\=\= usage \=\= (escaping =) If anyone can update them it will be good along with official link to download Machinexa (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Machinexa (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Machinexa: Welcome to the Teahouse. The VisualEditor is a beta feature, and can be found in your Special:Preferences' Editing tab. Just uncheck "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is still in beta". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machinexa (talkcontribs) 05:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a way to propose a particular format for a type of articles?[edit]

(Questions are in italics)

I’ve noticed that articles for smartphones and tablet computers (non-flagship devices, to be more specific) generally have issues in formatting and the type of information that is added. For example, many articles have the smartphone’s price, which violates Wikipedia:Prices, but lack a reception section or have inconsistent formatting. To solve this, I am creating a basic template at User:RedBulbBlueBlood9911/sandbox (still working on it) for users to add information directly and avoid violating Wikipedia policy, but I’d like to know if there is a way to get this format altered based on consensus and make it a standard format for such articles (of course, I don’t expect people to strictly follow it, I just want them to be able to create MOS-compliant articles easily and alter the format if they think it will make the article better). If not, what is the most I can do to make sure other editors are aware of this format proposal and use it for articles? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 05:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, RedBuhlbBlueBlood991, and welcome to the Teahouse. This sounds like the kind of thing that a WikiProject, or a task force under a WikiProject, might do. The closest matches I can find are Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Computer hardware task force, Wikipedia:WikiProject Telecommunications, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology
Do understand that you cannot make a particular layout mor structure mandatory, but a project can recommend a standard structure, and in some cases such recommendations mare widely followed.
Just about anything on Wikipedia can be altered by consensus, and the way to do that is to start a discussion to determine what the consensus is, or form one. Whether a template is the best way to implement a recommended structure is a question that could be discussed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 06:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I understand. The point is to have an easy way to ensure that MOS is followed and all the relevant information is added. Editors are free to use their own style as long as the article doesn’t lack any vital info or look like an advertisement. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@RedBuhlbBlueBlood991: Building off of what DESiegel said, you may want to check out WP:COVID-19 and what they did with {{Current COVID-19 Project Consensus}}. The level of urgency may be different, but articles that fall under its scope generally obey the points listed in the consensus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Pinging correctly this time now that I'm looking at the actual signature. Face-blush.svgTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
FacepalmTenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, so I’m going to approach Wikipedia:TECHNOLOGY because WP:TELECOMMUNICATIONS and WP:COMPUTING are child projects. But I noticed that the talk page is inactive, so how do I propose the article format? Should I start an RfC? RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Tenryuu. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@RedBulbBlueBlood9911: I think you can post the proposal on the talk page. If no one responds in the following days, you can probably start modifying articles that you see; if anyone reverts you point them in the direction of the proposal. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[edit]

 RAJINDER SINGH MEENA (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@RAJINDER SINGH MEENA: Welcome to the Teahouse. Did you have a question about your sandbox content? I should probably point out at this time that writing about yourself is frowned upon here as you would have a conflict of interest with yourself as the subject. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How to get my content posted on Wikipedia?[edit]

I wanted to get my bio on Wikipedia so I wanted to ask which guidelines I should follow? Dyce Official (talk) 05:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

KS Malefo

@Dyce Official: Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately you seem to have the wrong idea as to what Wikipedia is for; it is not a place to host bios, but rather a site that has articles on notable subjects. Writing about yourself is also strongly discouraged on here. Perhaps you are thinking of a site closer to LinkedIn? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

American Idol color templates[edit]

Hi there, just want editors or anyone who can help will be fine. I've happen to come across the page and asking for a help request if anyone can change the color scheme format for the American Idol articles (the first 15 seasons). I'm doing this because that from what I observed:

  • The colorful scheme has mostly been used for other competition and the contrast has been ideal for display. Using only monochrome colors lack contrast and the bold typeface should only be indicated for winners, not elimination. The yellow, light blue, light green and pink colors were the most common, respectively used for public save/top entries, judges save/bottom entries, special save and elimination.
  • The colorful scheme was first used on the ABC-revival (season 16 and later) and it had later adopted for a few select articles, such as SPOP Sing! (another reality singing competition held the same year as the AI season 16, in 2018)
  • I've seen other articles like The Voice and The X Factor, and these displays of results and performance charts are acceptable.
  • Maintain a good consistency on other articles, that is, the same format as all other articles in a series.

Earlier before I came to the page, I experimented the format on the very first AI season so that this will get attention to editors. I had faced a time constraint and unable to edit most big articles for the time being, however.

For other Idol articles outside US, it's about time to also see a change. Hope if anyone can come to a consensus. TVSGuy (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@TVSGuy: This is better asked on a project like Wikipedia:WikiProject Television, particularly at their Idols and Reality television task forces. Changes like that should be agreed upon via consensus. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Got it. Dunno where to ask, because i'm new here. TVSGuy (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@TVSGuy: No worries, we all had to start somewhere. Best of luck! —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Publishing Draft Article[edit]

Hi, I have recently made a draft article, Can you please let me know how this page is now reviewed and pushed live from draft to article on the site? Is there anything else i need to do? and how long can it take?

Many Thanks RudyFarr-Leander (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi RudyFarr-Leander, I added for you the missing submission Tag in your draft, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Submitting for review. Regards, CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks indeed CW, will read the article as i am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RudyFarr-Leander (talkcontribs) 07:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Eri Shuka has been declined, with reason given as lack of references showing that Eri Shuka's career meets Wikipedia's concept of notability. If people have not published stuff about her at length - not just a few sentences in an article on another topic - then perhaps just WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Why Okavango River Instead of the Correct Name Kavango River as Named by Kavango People (Namibia)?[edit]

I tried changing the Okavango River name and references to its original and official name Kavango River and this was reversed. Why is this? And does anyone know why this river is called Okavango River instead of Kavango River as named by the local Kavango people in Namibia?

Mind you, there is no meaning for the word Okavango in Namibia where the Kavango people who live along the Kavango River?

Thanks for your time. Khonas (talk) 09:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Khonas Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia typically uses the most common name for a subject as an article title, and not its official or legal name. Please see policy in this area for more information. For example, the article about Donald Trump is located at Donald Trump, not "Donald John Trump", his legal name. The article about Bill Clinton is located at Bill Clinton, not "William Jefferson Clinton", his legal name, or "William Jefferson Blythe", his birth name. If you can demonstrate that most reliable sources use the name you describe, please offer those sources on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Khonas: The article talk page is at Talk:Okavango River. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Submit draft for review[edit]

I don't know how to submit a draft for review. How do I do it? Bumsowee (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

HiBumsowee, welcome to the Teahouse - please have a look at what I left you on your talk page and furthermore Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation#Submitting_for_review.CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

CIA disinformation[edit]

A whole bunch of CIA disinformation has been placed on Wikipedia our best source of information for certain areas of research. For example it says that only four hundred deaths occurred in WWI. It says that Louis Dienes was academically made a doctor at Budapest University. Dienes was an Army trained bacteriologist that single handedly identified the etiology of typhoid. He received his Honorary MD at Harvard. Typhoid killed more soldiers in WWI than all other weapons put together. The CIA (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. Could you mention exactly which article or articles you mean? If a Wikipedia article claimed that there were 400 deaths in all of World War 1, that sounds like just a regular case of vandalism, probably by some bored school kid. (That is the main reason why Wikipedia should never be trusted on its own – every fact you read here should always be checked against the sources given in the article.) But if we don't know which articles are involved, it is impossible to comment on them. --bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

My first article - still in draft[edit]

Hello room.

I have just joined Wikipedia and written my first article. I have a couple of questions:

1. The article shows as being in draft ( - how do I move it to production?

2. I have tried to upload my photo to the article (Northwood Prep School Drone Shot.jpg) but when I do that I get the following error message "Something went wrong. We could not determine whether this file is suitable for Wikimedia Commons. Please only upload photos that you took yourself with your camera, or see what else is acceptable. See the guide to make sure the file is acceptable and learn how to upload it on Wikimedia Commons."

The page Wikipedia directs me to does not help. How do I resolve this error?

many thanks Hugh Hughchristensen (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hughchristensen, thanks for reaching out :) Regarding uploading the file, you might want to try Commons:Help desk - if you're done, add {{subst:submit}} to the top of your page - this will submit it for review Ed6767 (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Bot Accounts[edit]

How many ediys to earn a bot account in wikipedia??  Gedimon (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Gedimon, you've only made 7 edits - why do you want a bot account? Ed6767 (talk) 12:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Gedimon, as far as I know, there is no edit count requirement to have a bot account. Just remember that the bot must satisfy the following criteria (and some more I may have missed out):
  • It must be useful (ensuring WP:MOS compliance, reverting vandalism, and removing copyrighted or deleted images from articles are some examples)
  • It must not be a duplicate of any other bot
  • It must be bug-free
  • It must not add spam or gibberish (or in other words, it must not vandalise)
Please note that bot accounts are made only by people who know coding and wish to create bots to help Wikipedia. There are experienced editors who choose not to have bots for various reasons.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit protect request[edit]

I made an edit request here: Talk:Babri_Masjid#Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020 but got no response. Is there any mistake in the request?  Dr2Rao (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Dr2Rao, looking into it, I'll get back to you Ed6767 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you'll need to make a new edit request with the sources. That editor can't see your replies unless you ping them using the {{Re|Username}} template. Ed6767 (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Where & How I give credits if I add a new page on Wiki which is a translation of a Wiki page in English ??[edit]

I am thinking of translating parts of a Wikipedia page in English, into a new Hebrew page on Wikipedia. Where & How I give the credits to the source page of Wikipedia, on the translated page of Wikipedia ?? Transuser (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Transuser. Please see Translate us. --ColinFine (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How to put multiple of the same reference without displaying as a separate reference[edit]

Previous discussion : #Can't display image

I am making a page called Languages of Central Asia. I have a map of languages spoken there, but I can't put it above the normal line, like abcdefgh and so on. How do I do it? ::::@Tenryuu: can you help? Bumsowee (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bumsowee: The problem is that you did not use the exact case-sensitive name of the image. In your draft, try replacing Asia with asia and see what happens. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: No, as in the url displays twice. Sorry it was a bit vague :)
@Bumsowee: I am not sure what you mean by "the url displays twice" and what the "normal line" is. The external link to Reddit shouldn't be there, though. If you want to notify me you have to use your signature or else I don't get the notification.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bumsowee: Please never use links to reddit images. You should go find the original via a reverse image tool like, and put the link to the map in an 'External links' section. See WP:EL. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Contributions page[edit]

When I click on my Contributions page, there are numbers such as -5 and +8. What do these numbers mean? Angrypiranha (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Angrypiranha and welcome to the Teahouse - those are the numbers of bytes you added or removed from the corresponding article. CommanderWaterford (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on distinguishing an article from an existing, similarly titled but different topic[edit]

I'm looking for feedback on improving User:Mlepisto/Flats_boats to address the concerns that it is duplicate of Flat-bottomed_boat. While it does sound similar, a flats boat is a category of boat that may have various designs including flat-bottoms, although most often flats boats are not flat bottomed but v-hull variants while flat-bottom boats are a boat built with a specific design of boat and does not ecompass any other variants in the category of flats boats. The difference may be somewhat similar to a "house" vs "flat roofed building" where a house is a category of building, and "flat roofed buildings" may be both houses or other buildings, but it doesn't invalidate that "house" is a topic of its own.

I created this article due to finding it on the list of Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Sports#Fishing under Fishing. I understand that not everyone reading the article may know the difference and I may not have done a good enough job of distinguishing it which is why it may have been rejected as duplicate. Therefore I'm looking for input on how to improve it to make that distinction more immediately recognizable. Thank you. Mlepisto (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC) Mlepisto (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Want to write biography of someone.[edit]

Kindly help me for adding the page of the owner of one of famous group of institutions in here at Punjab (India). I can share the details of it later when it is found that the article can be created. For now I just want to share the website of institutions for kind consideration of Wikipedia admins. It is

Thanks for your support. Pankaj innocent (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Pankaj innocent, hello! You can learn more about how to get started over at Help:My first article Ed6767 (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How to address suspicious edits?[edit]

I have a couple concerns about edits on 1C Company and would like advice how to proceed. I added a notice to one editor's page but I think this requires more experienced eyes than mine.

 Mlepisto (talk) 15:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Mlepisto, try bringing this up at WP:AN - I'll take a look too Ed6767 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion 1C ought to redirect to 1C (disambiguation). I've made it so. Bishonen | tålk 16:12, 27 May 2020 (UTC).
Ed6767 thanks. I feel too inexperienced for posting on WP:AN especially because of the notice there. Even though my account may have been around a while it has been long stagnant in terms of contribution and usage beyond reading until recently. I see your and Bishonen's edits. Thank you both. Mlepisto (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Is my article suitable for Wikipedia[edit]

Hey, I am a new user and I wrote an article Draft:Genneya Walton. Please let me know if it meets an encyclopedic standard suitable for Wikipedia. Thanks Get a smart idea (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Get a smart idea: your Draft was submitted today. It would be unfair towards the creators of the 1,517 -1 other submissions awaiting review. Please be patient. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi I got a message from Zefr, warning me about plagiarism on an article I edited on "bee learning and communication"; the existing article was scientifically incorrect and deficient. Everything I added was written by me, and published in several papers I have written on the topic. Thus, I am not copying sentences from other people; everything was written by me and I have the right to use my sentences here and everywhere, right? I have no problems in disclosing my name to you so that you can verify my publication list, etc Drohnlein62 (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Drohnlein62: welcome to the Teahouse! Hope you're well. Wikipedia is licensed under a copyleft license, which means anyone can, with attribution, modify and reproduce anything in it even for commercial purposes. To comply with that license, we do need documentation that the copyright holder has licensed the text not to Wikipedia specifically but under a compatible copyleft license. Before you provide us any information: are you willing to do so? For more details, please feel free to review the relevant policy at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that for most science journals (the citations you authored or co-authored, added to Wikipedia, and are copying to Wikipedia verbatim) the copyright is transferred from the author(s) to the journal, with limited usage permissions to the authors. This means that copying your own writing to Wikipedia is a copyright violation. Secondly, Wikipedia discourages article editors from citing their own work. From WP:COI: "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. You will be permanently identified in the page history as the person who added the citation to your own work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion: propose the edit on the article's talk page and allow others to review it. However, adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." (my bolding). David notMD (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

How to contact an editor[edit]

It looks like editor Paphrag started the article titled Carolina dog. I want to know how to direct some questions to Paphrag. King.parker3 (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@King.parker3: You can leave a message at their talk page at User talk:Paphrag. If the matter is sensitive, they can be reached by email at Special:EmailUser/Paphrag. If the question is about the article Carolina Dog, you can discuss it at the article's talk page at Talk:Carolina Dog and {{ping}} Paphrag to notify him of the discussion. Hillelfrei talk 16:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Birth Name, Alternate Names and Common Incorrectly Spelt Names[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link to boxer: Takaloo

I've just been updating the names of a well known rapper on IMDB, who hasn't been added to Wikipedia yet, but is definitely notable. He has his real name, and at least 2 rap names. While looking for links as proof of his real name to add as his birth name to add to IMDB, and current rap name to add as an alternative name to IMDB, I came across the Wikipedia article for his brother for the millionth time, so I thought I might as well update that too, as it only has 2 references, and 2 external links (which shouldn't really be external links) so far.

His brother who is a former world champion boxer, also has multiple names... He has a real forename and surname, which together have 21 letters in total. A boxer name, which is his real forename, his surname with some letters missing, and an extra letter added to his surname. And his main boxer name which is just his surname with some letters missing, and an extra letter added.

However that isn't the only problem, as all of those names have been spelt incorrectly, in various ways, even on the number 1 source for boxers BoxRec has a letter missing from his surname, and sources which are apparently correct 100% of the time according to the majority of people on Wikipedia, like BBC News, and The Guardian have his name spelt incorrectly too. Not only have the majority of websites spelt his name incorrectly, they've also done stories about his rapper brother, but using his birth name albeit spelt incorrectly.

How do I know I'm correct, and the medias 10+ names for the same person are wrong? I know because, everyone can listen to his much more famous brother spell out their surname in a freestyle on Youtube, from last year, or see how it's spelt on multiple music profiles of his, where his name is copyrighted.

These are the results for him from Google:

  • Boxer Abbreviated Surname, with an extra letter added (23,500 results, which condenses down to 105 results after 11 pages)
  • Boxer Full Birth Name (3 results, although it actually shows 4 results)
  • Boxer Full Birth Name, with 1 letter missing from his Surname (208 results, which condenses down to 59 results after 6 pages)
  • Boxer Correct Forename, with Abbreviated Surname (1340 results, which condenses down to 82 results after 9 pages. It also suggests my spelling is incorrect)
  • Boxer Forename with 1 letter missing, and Correct Surname (73 results, which condenses down to 35 results after 4 pages. However the majority of these are talking about his rapper brother, but they've used his real name albeit spelt incorrectly, and not his brothers real name)
  • Boxer Forename with 1 letter missing, and Surname with 1 letter missing (9 results)
  • Boxer Forename with 1 letter missing, and Abbreviated Surname (810 results, which condenses down to 60 results after 6 pages)
  • Boxer Forename with the wrong vowel used, and Surname with 1 letter missing (267 results, which condenses down to 39 results after 4 pages)
  • Boxer Forename with the wrong vowel used, and Abbreviated Surname (536 results, which condenses down to 93 results after 10 pages)
  • Boxer Forename with 1 letter missing and wrong vowel used, and Abbreviated Surname (2 results)

Here are some results for his much more famous brother from Google:

  • Main Rapper Name (132,000 results, which condenses down to 91 results after 10 pages)
  • New Alter Ego Rapper Name (18,000 results, which condenses down to 52 results after 6 pages)
  • Rapper Full Birth Name (239 results, which condenses down to 40 results after 4 pages)
  • Rapper Full Birth Name, with 1 letter missing from his Surname (365 results, which condenses down to 32 results after 4 pages. It also suggests my spelling is incorrect)
  • Forename and Main Rapper Name (56,000 results, which condenses down to 84 results after 9 pages)
  • Forename and New Alter Ego Rapper Name (2,370 results, which condenses down to 40 results after 4 pages)

Now you can see my problem.

Once I've added the boxers correct birth name, and the only 4 links which exist as proof of the correct spelling, and added his forename and abbreviated surname to other names, should I add all the common incorrect spellings to the other names too, while pointing out why they're incorrect? Or should I just copy and paste an edited version of what I've just wrote here, on the talk page of the article itself for future reference?

Danstarr69 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: I think you're better off posting this on the article's talk page. If the page isn't watched, consider Wikipedia:Requests for comment. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Danstarr69: You do realise that IMdB is user-edited, don't you. (Daft question - of course you do) But because of that fact, we can't use anything you've add to IMdB as the basis for a Wikipedia article. The two things need to be very separate. See also WP:COMMON NAME for how Wikipedia deals with spellings etc. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Nick Moyes What are you on about? I'm not writing a Wikipedia article based on IMDB information.

I'm updating countless amounts of stuff on IMDB. I'm currently stuck on the former world champion boxer Takaloo born Mehrdud Takalobighashi, as there's barely any sources which spell his birth name correctly. I'll be updating his brother Mic Righteous born Rocky Takalobighashi's profile on IMDB later on.

I'm updating occasional bits of stuff on Wikipedia that I stumble across along the way, on my mission to add/correct/update British birth locations/death locations/filming locations with their modern usage on IMDB (IMDB rules are the complete opposite of the rules on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia insists on using out of date locations, like non-existent historic counties for things like birth places, rather than the modern ceremonial county names), correct names, merge profiles which are clearly the same people, add any missing credits I know of, add posters and screenshots to British (predominantly Yorkshire) productions which don't have any images yet, and add/correct/update any production/distribution information I notice that's missing.

Takaloo is one of those Wikipedia articles I've stumbled across countless times over the years because of his brother, so I was going to update it a bit today, along with his IMDB profile, until I noticed 99.99% of the sources on Google had spelt his birth name incorrectly.

I'm currently writing my first ever post on BoxRec in the British and Irish forum, to try and get his birth name corrected on there first at least, then maybe email some of the MSM companies like the BBC and The Guardian to correct some of their articles. However I won't be holding out much hope, as the last time I emailed various MSM companies to correct their articles about a 1960 BBC and ITV co-production, the majority of them ignored my email, and the few who replied wanted me to email someone else to get them corrected, or weren't that bothered because they were old articles. Who cares how old the articles are, you're spreading false information!

Then maybe in a few weeks/months/years (if no-one else creates it first), I'll be creating a Wikipedia article for Takaloo's more famous brother Mic Righteous.

Danstarr69 (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: Sorry, I've struck my reply. Your post was a bit TL;DR, so I probably skimmed through it too quickly to properly assimilate what you were asking. It's been a long day - so just ignore me. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I am having a hard time understanding why you are asking WikiP editors to help you write something on IMDb. The teahouse questions are usually reserved far aiding in editing this website not others. Having said that you might ask you question at the WP:RD/E or WP:RD/M. MarnetteD|Talk 23:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

MarnetteD clearly you're another person who has trouble reading.

Here is my problem in a few sentences:

  • Takaloo has an incorrect birth name on Wikipedia.
  • I was going to correct Takaloo's birth name.
  • I was going to add his other name to other names.
  • Then I noticed that 99.99% of sources on the internet, have spelt his birth name incorrectly.
  • I listed the 3 names he goes by, and the 7 which were spelt incorrectly, along with how many results I got for each on Google.
  • I did the same for his more famous brother, who has the same surname, as proof that 99.99% of sources on the internet, have spelt Takaloo's name incorrectly.
  • I asked whether I should add the most common misspelt names to other names explaining why they are incorrect, or if I should just add an edited version of my research to the talk page, as there will no doubt be people in future, re-adding the incorrect spellings.

Danstarr69 (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Danstarr69: You're welcome to voice your concerns on the talk page, but Wikipedia follows the WP:COMMONNAME used by sources, even if the information is wrong, unfortunately. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


(suggested crosspost of Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Foliate)

I got my edit reverted when I tried to publish a new article over an existing redirect. My contact with the other editor is not as productive as I would have wished and is starting to escalate. As I understand it, there should still be some link from Foliate, even if I publish under a different (bracketed) title. I implemented what I thought was the right solution, but he keeps complaining about existing links where people would then have to click through instead of being forwarded immediately. I am looking for a viable solution. I have no other idea, except for turning the redirect into a disambiguation page, which should make no difference to him. Kulandru mor (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(btw: a new version is here, for now.)

@Kulandru mor: Name the article Foliate (application). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure. But what about people searching for the article under Foliate?--Kulandru mor (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Kulandru mor: Right now, you're simply getting ahead of yourself. You created this article today, and it hasn't even got through WP:NPP yet. For all we know, it might be deemed a non-notable product and put forward for deletion, per WP:NSOFTWARE, so I suggest simply waiting for now. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that a recent software product would displace a centuries-old established botanical concept as the primary topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Username question[edit]

I am not sure where to post this so forgive me in advance. I noticed a user named Mbaeza123 making multiple edits on an article with almost a similar name: Mario Baeza. Is this allowed? - SUBWAY 18:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Subwaymuncher: Thanks for bringing that to our attention. I have left a {{coi}} tag on the article and CommanderWaterford has left them a message on their talk page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Subwaymuncher: Like Tenryuu, I've also taken a look at the article, and intially started to clean it up after all the CV-like additions made by the subject of that article. However, I gave it up as a lost cause. So, I have just proposed on the article Talk page (Talk:Mario Baeza) that we restore the article to its 13 May version and move forward from there, asking the subject to make edit requests for specific changes they feel are necessary. There are simply too many things wrong with those new additions, and I don't believe we should waste our time cleaning it up, bit by bit, for them. You can express your support or disagreement with that proposal in my post there. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:22, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Arnold S. Monto -- Notability and review[edit]

Hi TeaHouse Friends, I'm a first time editor and you were very helpful in getting me on track with Draft: Arnold S. Monto. I believe I've acted on your good (and encouraging!) advice. Does Dr. Monbto now meet the notability standard? If you see any problems, notability or other, please let me know. Dr. Monto is a renown epidemiologist whose knowledge of cornaviruses, pandemics, and vaccine development is especially timely right now. Many thanks! Terrimellow (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Most of the volunteers here are not draft reviewers, and so our opinions do not carry that much weight. David notMD (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
FYI: Merged 2 headings of same question into one Hillelfrei talk 18:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Teahouse friends, I'm a first time editor and you were very helpful in getting me on track. Please let me know if I've now met the notability standard for Draft: Arnold S. Monto. If you see any problems, notability or other, please let me know. Dr. Monto is a renown epidemiologist whose work on influenza, coronavirus, pandemic, and vaccine development is especially timely. Terrimellow (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft: Arnold S. Monto needs more work. The Selected service section has five hyperlinks to websites for those organizations. Not allowed. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look. Much appreciated. I've removed the hyperlinks in Selected Service section. Anything else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrimellow (talkcontribs) 20:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


How do you upload a photo on someone's page Scelo67 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Scleo67: Before we proceed any further, is the image copyright-free or does it meet all of Wikipedia's WP:NONFREE use criteria? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Pinging Scelo67 correctly this time around. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Flu Article[edit]

Resolved: Full citation provided. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Under the Spanish Flu article there is a reference to a PBS episode,

Next to that reference is a parameter "full citation needed."

"Influenza 1918 episode (documentary). American Experience. PBS.[full citation needed]</ref>"

I don't know what parameters go into the cite media template, but I found these:

Producer=Robert Kenner Director=Robert Kenner Narrator=Linda Hunt Date Aired=18 January 2010 Season=10 Episode=5

I’m new to Wikipedia editing and there is a note that says I may not be at the level needed to make any changes. I hope this helps. Carlislejp51 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done, thanks Carlislejp51! Template:Cite media works, but I went with Template:Cite episode. Bkissin (talk) 20:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Rejected Article[edit]

Hello everyone, please I need assistance on a article I wrote on a known pastor that was rejected. The feedback says, "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject." I need suggestions on how I can improve the article so as to increase its chances of being accepted. Nikkylad (talk)

Article: Draft:Abraham Great ladokun 20:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello Nikkylad and welcome to the Teahouse. I took a look at the article and the reason it got declined is because there are parts of the article that are not sourced. If you add sources to all those parts, it should get accepted. Interstellarity (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

verifiable sources[edit]

Hello how do I identify verifiable sources Gorretikabura (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gorretikabura, and welcome to the Teahouse. Verifiability is about being able to prove that a statement is correct. So we need references to an accessible, published source for that. That allows another person to 'verify' the statement. However, there's a big BUT: the source itself needs to be a good one, and not some half-cocked personal blog or wacky website. It needs to be a properly edited, reliable source that everyone recognises, and not just by the wack-jobs who believe every conspiracy theory going. (i.e. 'main stream media;) So, the two guidance pages I would point you to to learn more are: Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Do please read through them and let us know how you get on. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
One of the things which WP:RS tells you is that Wikipedia mirrors and forks are not reliable sources (see WP:WPNOTRS). One which you used recently, was reverted, but you reinserted, is listed at WP:Mirrors and forks/ABC#Alchetron. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Creating a new page[edit]

Hi there,

I was just wondering how I can add a page for a person who is not on wikipedia? Can anybody assist me with the steps required? SPO11223377 (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@SPO11223377: Welcome to the Teahouse. Most of what you need as a guide can be found over at WP:YFA, but a few things will help:

Is England like a US state[edit]

Is England to the United Kingdom as California is to the United States, as in are the four countries of the UK adminstrative division equivalents to U.S. states? (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC) (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP editor, that sort of question is best asked at the reference desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: User:Shireenb8/sandbox

hello i'm new to wikipedia and will like my article published, it was Declined and i need help to understand what do i need to do to make the article good enough for wikipedia? Shireenb8 (talk) 23:41, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Shireenb8: Welcome to the Teahouse! At the top of your draft is a gray box with lots of links. Please click on each link and read it in full (and yes, they're long). Then, please read Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and make a declaration on your user page if you are Kevin Crown, you know Kevin Crown, or are being paid by Kevin Crown to create the article. Next, gather up all your best independent reliable sources and follow the process at Help:Your first article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Shireenb8: To add on to GoingBatty's answer, remove all promotional language (WP:PUFFERY) from your draft. Almost all of it speak of him positively in a blatant manner. Phrases like A man of many talents and Kevin did not cease to amaze are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding edit conflicts[edit]

Hi, if I am editing a published article, what's the best way to avoid an edit conflict? I refer to the error that shows up when somebody edits the same article you are editing while you are still in edit mode. I read about a template you can add to the top of the article, but I can't recall any details and can't find anything about it. Thanks. NawJee (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC) NawJee (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@NawJee: Welcome back to the Teahouse. The best way to avoid edit conflicts is to make short edits on the article. It's preferable to do it in source and click "edit section" specifically. You can add the {{in use}} tag to the top of articles to let other editors know that a major edit is being done and as such to refrain from making edits as a courtesy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tenryuu: Thanks! I hope you're doing well. The {{in use}} tag is what I was looking for. I was thinking of expanding some stubs listed down at the community portal over the next few weeks. Thought it might come in handy. Thank you. NawJee (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@NawJee: Best of luck! Just remember to remove it when you're finished editing. {{Under construction}} can be used when you're taking breaks. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Need to edit a highly protected page[edit]

Greetings, i need access to the article name " Adam's bridge". I need to make a change on it. For that i need To edit it. Hari 1213 (talk) 04:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Hari 1213, in order to edit that page you will need to be auto-verified, an action that happens automatically when you have edited 10 pages and have been registered on Wikipedia for 4 days. You can read more about this here. Capsulecap (talk) 04:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
@Hari 1213: Enough. You have been temporarily blocked for your efforts after inserting unsourced claims in your edits. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Hari 1213, while you are blocked, take the time to read Talk:Adam's Bridge and the archived discussions. When your block has ended, you can comment on the talkpage if you like, or return to the Teahouse if you have other questions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

How can I Suggest @preetikasingh draft Lakhahi Raj to be published[edit]

 Anodi88 (talk) 06:25, 28 May 2020 (UTC) I suggest Lakhahi Raj to be published — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anodi88 (talkcontribs) 06:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Anodi88, and welcome to the Teahouse. Users can not suggest that something be published, unless they’re involved in the AfC review process. I went through the draft, and in its current shape, it won’t be accepted for the following reasons:
  • No evidence that the kingdom is notable enough
  • The term "princely state" was not used before the British came to India in the 17th century, so the draft is factually incorrect
  • Incorrect formatting
  • Lack of reliable independent sources, like university books, historians’ writings etc. Besides, Dainik Jagran is a news site, and the reference has a 404 error. There is only one verifiable source which is directly related to the article’s subject.
RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 06:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Jeshurun J. D. Andrew. Fix issues with draft.[edit]

Good day,

I have worked on an article Draft: Jeshurun J. D. Andrew previously submitted, but was declined due to insufficient citing of reliable sources. Originally eight (8) links were cited, and I have since added thirteen more, bringing the total to 21. The Links are footnoted inline after each piece of information as wikipedia instructions indicate. The links are from the official websites of established news papers in Saint Lucia and magazines. The other links are from the official youtube account of the government of Saint Lucia.

I have since again received feedback stating that the draft was declined due to sources not being reliable and that the links were not cited inline. I do not understand what makes the links unreliable or why it was felt that they were not cited inline.

I want to work towards getting the article published, and so i would like some more detailed information, as to what i need to do. Here is an example of a link used in the article:

Please assist. This will also allow me to improve my skills in wikipedia, as an active contributor to its development. TotallyBlessed (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello TotallyBlessed and welcome to the Teahouse! I have no comment on the WP:RS/WP:BASIC-ness of your draft for now (though I saw a "wordpress", see WP:BLOGS, and some youtube, see WP:RSPYT), but one thing needs improving. As you see by all the redlinks in the reference section, that didn't quite work as it should. Try to follow the guidance for references at WP:TUTORIAL. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) TotallyBlessed, there are numerous problems with the draft, but the most obvious is with the references. There are eight references to the same source, which is based on an interview with the subject and so not independent of the subject. Such sources can be used, but do not help to establish that the subject is notable. The other thirteen references are misformatted so that they link to non-existent Wikipedia templates. Maproom (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)