Wikipedia:Teahouse

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



Draft:Alan Singh[edit]

Help me to make this.[1] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 10:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Karsan Chanda. Could you kindly specify your query? Do you want help to make an article on tribals or on a topic from the shared link? Please specify so that we can answer your query. Thank You. Kpddg (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
If the page in question is Alan_Singh, the reasons for its decline have been mentioned at the top of the page. Kpddg (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Karsan Chanda. If you want to create an article on Alan Singh, your absolutely first starting point (ideally before writing a single word) is to find three or four sources which talk at length about Singh himself - not just about his campaigns, or his tribe, or places associated with him. The sources do not need to be in English, or online (though it is helpful if they are); but they do need to have been published by publishers with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking. The book you have just cited looks as if it might be a reliable source; but why are you citing it? If it is for an article about the Mina, see our existing article Meena - you may want to make additions to that. --ColinFine (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Tribal Cultures and Change".
From the start of this draft last September, Karsan Chanda has been composing more about Amber Fort and the massacre of the Chandra dynasty (Meena) by Kachhwaha than about Alan Singh. If this is to succeed, focus on referenced content about Alan Singh. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Can this page be resubmitted now? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I suggest you reword your first sentence so it starts "Raja Alan Singh Meena...", as that is the Wikipedia guideline per MOS:LEADSENTENCE. You mention that "Historian Colonel James Tod has written about Alan Singh in detail in his book Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan" - what did Tod write about him? You only use that book as a reference for his deathplace. Did he write anything else? I also suggest expanding the references to include authors, publishers, years, etc. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Kachwahas are said to be the descendants of Kush, the second son of Lord Rama. One of the descendants of Kush was Raja Nal who settled in Nurwar. Raja Sora Singh was the descendant of Raja Nal who was killed and his son Dhola Rae was deprived of inheritance.

As Dhola Rae was an infant, his mother felt that the usurper may kill her and the child so she put the child in a basket and reached near Khogong which was ruled by Meenas. Being hungry she was plucking wild berries. Seeing a snake near the basket she screamed but a Brahmin saw and told that the baby has a very bright future.

He took her to Khogong where she asked the king to give her some employment for survival. The queen included her in her slaves. One day, as per the order, she cooked food which was liked by the king. When he listened her story, he adopted her as sister and Dhola Rae as his nephew. Dhola Rae was sent to Delhi at the age of 14 and he returned after five years.

The Kachwaha Rajputs returned with Dhola Rae and as per their conspiracy, they killed many of the royal people and the public during the celebration of Diwali festival. In this way, the Kachwahas overtook the town from the Meenas. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 04:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Remember the draft is about Alan Singh, so the focus should be on him. I'm not sure if anything you wrote above is about Alan Singh. Looking at your draft more closely, I see you called it "Alan Singh" but mention "Alan Singh Chanda" in the infobox and "Raja Alan Singh Meena" in the lead. I suggest you be consistent about his name. GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: The names of Ratan Singh and Ralusi are also mentioned for Alan Singh. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 – Combined sections again. GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Resubmit. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 07:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda Kya karna hay? Resubmit karna chahte hain aap? ItcouldbepossibleTalk 07:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse hosts are not draft reviewers. That said Draft:Alan Singh, declined three times already, is no closer to being approvable. The refs appear to be mostly about a massacre of Meena/Chandra that took place long after Singh was dead, or about the fort that Singh started in 967, but was since then greatly enlarged by subsequent rulers. Tour guide descriptions of the fort add nothing to Singh's notability. David notMD (talk) 09:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, you asked for help on 21 January. There are extensive replies at #2 on this list of Teahouse questions and answers. David notMD (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: I have combined sections again. Please do not start a new section while this topic is still open here. There is also lots of discussion at Draft talk:Alan Singh. When you have taken all the suggestions into consideration and believe you have improved the draft to the point where you have included multiple independent reliable sources that have significant coverage about Singh so that it demonstrates how Singh meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion ("notability"), you may click the "Resumbit" button on the draft to have it reviewed. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Help me to make this.[1][2] -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Why can page movers edit editnotices?[edit]

It seems like the least related permission there is in the group. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 08:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has answered this so far and perhaps this is because it seems more a technical question to ask at WT:EDITNOTICE, WT:PAGEMOVER, WT:UAL or even WT:PP). Perhaps there's a good reason why or perhaps nobody has given it much thought other than you yourself. My guess is that edit notices tend to be added when there's a fairly good reason for doing so; so, it was probably considered wise to limit who's able to edit them since they are essentially templates in which even a small change could affect quite a large number of pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Essay-like Tone? How long before my article is ready?[edit]

Hi! I'm working on the article Draft:Envelope Encryption. It got rejected a few days ago in the AfC queue because the tone was too essay-like, and I got a few comments about citation style. I fixed what I thought/was told was essay-like tone and the citations, but I'm not sure I covered everything. It seems like I haven't fully absorbed what the Wikipedian definition of "essay-like" is yet, so I would really like help with this. I am auto-confirmed, but I submitted to the AfC queue because I wanted feedback. Here are some questions I'd like help with:

1: Could somebody look at my fixed article and say if they think there are still essay-like parts of the tone? Some specific pointers would be nice!

2: I theoretically have permission to move my article out of drafts, since I am auto-confirmed. How many rounds of feedback should my article go through before moving it out of drafts? Do you think it's ready?

Thanks!

 A40585 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585: Welcome to the Teahouse! The topic of your draft isn't in my area of expertise, but I wonder if you're overcapitalizing. For example, should we use "Key Management Systems" or "key management systems". The key management article leads me to believe that lower case is correct. Good luck with your draft! GoingBatty (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@GoingBatty: Thanks for the warm welcome! Great catch! That's a mistake I make pretty often in technical writing. I fixed it. A40585 (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@A40585:, I've taken the liberty of decapitalizing the second word of your title, per WP:NCCAPS. You'll now find it at Draft:Envelope_encryption. I agree that it does read a bit like an essay. A more encyclopedic tone could perhaps be achieved by the use of more citations, and the assumption of a broader audience, with more general questions they'd like answered: Who invented it, or is it one of those ideas that are obvious to everybody in the field at about the same time? What notable successes or failures has the technique had? What alternatives are there, and what distinguishes this technique from the alternatives? Overall, though, it's better, as-is, than most articles on Wikipedia, so these are just little things. EVhotrodder (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi @A40585: - I took a quick look and think the draft still reads like an essay. The biggest issue is that none of the info about envelope encryption is sourced. You describe the technique in your own words, but link to commercial cloud computing company sites, a paywalled research paper, and an online glossary for a related term. You'll need sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that the term is significant enough for a standalone article. I googled envelope encryption to see if I could find some technical articles about the term, and was unsuccessful. You're probably better off merging the info to encryption, such as to Encryption#Uses. Then you need fewer sources to demonstrate notability. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Bumping a question[edit]

 – Combined sections. GoingBatty (talk) 20:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I got my question from a few hours ago partially answered (thanks to GoingBatty!), but I'd like a bit more feedback and opinions about when I can ship the article. For reference, it's this one: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Essay-like_Tone?_How_long_before_my_article_is_ready?. Thanks, and please tell me if bumping is bad etiquette! A40585 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@A40585 Welcome back, and thanks for asking. Don't take it the wrong way, but because all posts here get archived after just 2-3 days of inactivity, bumping isn't really needed or appropriate. If a discussion gets continued input from editors over a week or two, then the post will end up at the top of Teahouse list until that activity ceases. Only then will it be archived. You should then get an automated message on your talk page saying it's been archived. So, if you still don't feel you've had your question fully addressed, that would then be the time to come back and ask again, ideally linking in to the now-archived thread that has been closed (there'll be a link in that automated message).
I'm not sure I can add much to what GoingBatty said, as it is very technical. I suggest your second sentence is used as the lead sentence. It makes more sense to a dolt like me. I would, however, strongly advise any new editor not to move an article they care about directly into mainspace. Once there, it stands a much greater risk of being deleted as inappropriate, whereas by going theough Articles for Creation drafts don't get rejected without good reason, and then you get a chance to take on board the feedback you're given. The downside is that it can take a long time to be processed - perhaps up to 2 or 3 months. Your own uncertainty tends to confirm that getting reviewer feedback would be helpful. Another route is to post at WP:WikiProject Computing and ask the technogeeks there to take a look. All that being said, it does look like it's potentially notable. I found this intro gave me a better understanding, and could also be used to confirm notability. If you're really unsure, you could always search related articles and see if what you want to add could actually be inserted into one of them. I hope this helps - and well done on getting this far. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Thanks so much for your feedback! :-) I'll try those things too, since it looks like going through a WikiProject will be the best way to get a reviewer with a domain knowledge. I didn't realize you could do that. I'll try to take some inspiration from that intro too, but sadly the source itself is user-editable wiki style documentation :(. Thanks again, and I'll keep working on my draft this week! A40585 (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to fix references[edit]

Hi! My submission ( http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Draft:Jacqueline_Rhodes ) got declined and I'm trying to fix the references and reliable sources. Could someone take a look at help me with what I'm doing wrong? Thanks much. Profjrhodes (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)profjrhodes

Remove all hyperlinks from the body of the article. I suspect that none of the awards are Wikipedia-significant, and thus the awards section should be deleted, but I defer to editors with knowledge of LGBTQ scholarship and Wikipedia's guidelines on awards. IMBd is not an accepted ref, as anyone can edit it. David notMD (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Profjrhodes: Welcome to the Teahouse! IMDb can be used in the "External links" section. I suggest you expand each reference to include a |work= or |publisher= parameter, and also a |year= or |date= parameter. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
@Profjrhodes: Howdy. You're fighting an uphill battle already, in writing an autobiographical article. Doing so as an academic, while using an academic, rather than encyclopedic, tone, is perhaps unnecessarily compounding the problem. Intersections occur in roads, rather than fields; if something is evident, it's redundant to say so; the article is about you, not about Joan Negley Kelleher, and Wikipedia isn't the place to pay tribute. You're missing an infobox, and should probably line up a photo you like and are willing to publish under a creative commons license. You should place citations consistently outside punctuation, not sometimes inside, as you're currently doing. Since this isn't a résumé, rather than exhaustively listing everything in the books and awards sections, I'd trim it down to just those things that are particularly notable. Good luck. EVhotrodder (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Very helpful. Profjrhodes (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Research assistant[edit]

Hello, I am a research assistant at a university. Part of my employment is to write and post an article on wikipedia about research models in my field. However, I have found that paid writers are not allowed to post on wikipedia or they need to disclose payment? Did I understand that correctly? Or what am I missing? :) Thank you - LOWTeam2022 (talk) 05:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi again LOWTeam2022. It sounds like your employer might be misunderstanding some very important things about Wikipedia. I've mentioned some of these above in my answer to your other question, but you might want to explain to your employer that Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be places for publishing academic or other types of research. Articles can contain information (when encyclopedically relevant) about already published and peer reveiwed reseach when it's considered to be a reliable source as explained here, but articles aren't intended to be a way of publishing or promoting one's research (i.e. means of first publication). As for paid-editing, it's not expressly prohibitted as long is it's properly declared as explained in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, but be advised that many in the Wikipedia community are highly suspicious of even properly declared paid editing which may create issues between you and other Wikipedia editors. Paid-editing is a form of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and such editing is highly discouraged and considered inappropriate by many. Anyway both paid and COI editing can be done when done properly in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines, but you will have no real editorial control over such an article once it's created as explained in Wikipedia:Ownership of content and no special consideration will be granted to you just because you've been compensated for your work by a third-party. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
This is actually quite a messy area, and I suspect you are the tip of the iceberg. I am quite certain that many universities and research organisations have held wikithons and encouraged their employees to update Wikipedia's articles/write new articles about their areas of research. In general, it goes unnoticed because all concerned are blissfully unaware that they've strayed into paid and COI territory. Usually, the people who do the work are motivated by very similar aims to WP itself, and they're often good writers who respect the importance of sources, so the product is good, and no one notices. @Marchjuly has given good advice. You will face an up-hill struggle because editors here are deeply suspicious of COI. But the absolutely, totally, fundamentally most important thing is that your task is impossible unless the research models about which you wish to write are accepted models that have been used/written-about independently by other researchers. WP isn't the place to promote new, cutting-edge ideas (that's straying into original research), or generally to promote one institution. Thank you for raising the question. You were right to do so. Elemimele (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this right to respond here...I sincerely appreciate your help in thinking through these details. I have been trying to process the information when I read it and glad to have this place to do so.
The research is not new; has been around for many years and proven with many case studies/examples. Also the research has already been published in peer reviewed journals and textbooks.
Does this help clarify? Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LOWTeam2022 (talkcontribs) 07:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Creating new articles in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies and guidelines is quite a difficult thing to get used to for even experienced (i.e. professional) writers because the Wikipedia:Manual of Style might not be what they're accustomed to and in many cases might seem "wrong" or "counterintuitive". Even the wikicode used in creating and formatting articles can be tricky if you're used to something different. However, it's going to make no difference how beautifully written and formatted an article is if it's not able to WP:OVERCOME the hurdle of Wikipedia:Notability. Wikipedia notability (or the lack thereof) is pretty much the main reason why article's end up WP:DELETEd. If you're unable to establish whether the subject you want to write about is clearly "Wikipedia notable", then its chances of surviving a deletion challenge go way down. I've got no idea what you're going to try and create an article about, but perhaps a good thing to do would be to check whether there's a Wikipedia:WikiProject which might cover the subject matter. Perhaps the editors of such a project would be better able to assess whether what you want to write about should be written about or maybe whether it's already been written about. Many WikiProjects have members with backgrounds in research and academia and they might be able to help provide advice more specific to your particular situation. If it turns out that Wikipedia is not suited for what you're trying to do, there are many WP:ALTERNATIVEs that might better suit your needs that will give you more control and are less restrictive when it comes to things like shared accounts, paid editing, conflict of interest editing, etc. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
You have been coy so far as to the nature of the research area. Biomedical? Electronic? Energy? Economics? What does "research models" mean? Are there no existing articles for which the research at your university could be added to? Keep in mind that encyclopedias are trailing indicators of information. General advice here is to gain experience improving existing articles before attempting to create an article. David notMD (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
And you can kill two birds with one stone in following David notMD's advice: if you can find some articles related to what you want to write about, improving them is a worthy action in itself, but will also help you find out about WP's style and formatting, and you might find an article whose structure you can use as a pattern for writing a new article. Although good sources are the vital starting-point, your article will have best chances of acceptance if it reads similarly to other, good articles in the same field (try to find good examples to follow; look on the talk-pages of the articles, where you will find a box at the top. In some articles, this box will say that the article is on an important subject, or has been rated. The best articles to use as patterns are those that are important enough to have been seen by a lot of editors - they're less likely to be misguided products that have slipped under the radar - and that are good enough to have been rated as good!). Elemimele (talk) 16:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
You've piqued my curiosity, LOWTeam2022. Could you point us to a couple of articles that cover the topic? ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 07:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I am going to seek more clarity before responding. Thanks for all of the support and interest. LOWTeam2022 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How to correct an article[edit]

I have come across an article that is not only factually incorrect (conflating two events) but also logically ludicrous. How do I go about correcting it? 124.168.253.129 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It depends. You can click "edit" on any article in order to make the edit yourself, but some articles might be locked so only registered users can edit it. In which case you can go onto the talk page of any article and make the request there. — Czello 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Well you can’t just change information. All the information on Wikipedia has to be backed with reliable sources. So if you have reliable source to back up the information that you think is factually incorrect than go right ahead and replace the information and provide the reliable source with a reference. If you do not have a reliable source to back up your information than that would be considered original research and your edits will probably be undone. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I am guessing you are asking about Australia Day, also that you started editing as IP 124.168.253.129, then registered an account and continued as User:Autist4lyfe. You are verging on what Wikipedia calls 'edit warring' (two or more editors reverting each other's edits). The proper next step is to start a discussion on the artic;e's Talk page. Now that you have an account, 'sign' your name by typing four of ~ at the end of each comment. David notMD (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

can I delete my account or is removing the email address it? This place is not good for me. Autist4lyfe (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Autist4lyfe: Unfortunately, accounts can't be deleted, as edits must be attributed to an account or IP address. You are free to simply stop using your account. If you do, please refrain from continuing to edit war. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Autist4lyfe: The body of the article explains that the celebration of the European landing on Jan 26 dates back to 1808. Changing the infobox to disagree with the article content is unhelpful. Also the source you cited doesn't mention Jan 26 as the date of the first citizenship ceremony in 1949. I'm curious where you came across this alternate theory, is it circulating on social media? ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 00:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
this is the closest I've ever come to social media. Thought I would get out of my comfort zone. Apparently the fact that there were no Australians prior to 1949 is considered irrelevant. I will leave you all to whatever this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talkcontribs) 00:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Autist4lyfe If your government chooses the wrong reason to celebrate the holiday, you will need to speak to your government, not us. 331dot (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Bit rich having an American tell an Australian what happens in Australia but that seems to be the Wikipedia way. BTW - have to remove the email address or I keep getting spam from this hole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autist4lyfe (talkcontribs) 16:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I would like to expand a page that has been written about me[edit]

A page was written for me: http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Laura_Donaldson I would like to add more information to my personal information:- I would like to add a recent photo, my 'Alma mater' and occupation. I wonder what 'Years active' means...? I'd like to add information to the main body of text. I am working on a laptop - VisualEditor (?) - not mobile view 86.177.135.104 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Please first review the Autobiography policy. If you have suggestions for changes, please make them at Talk:Laura Donaldson in the form of an edit request(click for instructions). For uploading a photo(ideally one you took yourself/a relative took) see Files for upload. 331dot (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hello. You have a conflict of interest and should edit carefully. You should read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY and follow the advice there. I suggest that you open an account to facilitate communication with other editors and use the formal edit request process at Talk: Laura Donaldson. As for a photo, if you are the copyright holder, you can upload it to Wikimedia Commons under an acceptable free license. It can then be added to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As the subject of the article, perhaps you also have access to clippings that document your career accomplishments? It would be especially helpful if you identify at Talk: Laura Donaldson any articles or other sources that covered your career in some depth. Such sources will help greatly in overcoming a contention that the article in its current state does not demonstrate that you qualify for a stand-alone article under Wikipdia's general notability guideline. Please don't take my suggestion as a "dig". Your accomplishment in qualifying for the Olympics is, of course, amazing, but Wikipedia's guidelines require us to show that you have received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Miss. Laura Donaldson If articles about you written available on world wide web from news website, provide links to your article's WP:talk page someone will add about you in article.Success think (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

{{tb}} link added. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up to follow up to Templeton draft article[edit]

Does Wikipedia count for notoriety? Article declined for references but subject shows up at least 6 times in separate wikipedia articles. Appreciate the help to finish this article. Flagship1 (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flagship1: I would assume you mean "Notability" and not "notoriety". To my knowledge, subject notability is based solely on the amount of reliable sources with information on the source that are available. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Notoriety is a form of notability but not the case here. The issue is that you are using WP:Primary sources and wikipedia needs WP:Secondary sources. Routine press announcements, WH press releases and Navy biography are not independent of the subject. You should try and find WP:THREE independent reliable sources.Slywriter (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Slywriter: Mind explaining what you mean by, "Notoriety is a form of notability but not the case here"? My brain is a bit fried at the moment. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Flagship1, if you still haven't managed to find substantive material about Charles Arthur Williams, perhaps none can be found. Just put Draft:Charles Arthur Williams on hold until such material turns up (if it ever will), and work on other articles. (Do you have no interests outside Charles Arthur Williams?) -- Hoary (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
To answer your specific question, Wikipedia itself is not considered a reliable source, because it contains user-generated content. See WP:USERG. CodeTalker (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Greek Anthology[edit]

I'm thinking of moving most of the information in the "Translations and imitations" section of this article to a new article called List of translations and imitations from the Greek Anthology, as the section is becoming unwieldy. I would add a

tag in the original article linking to the new page.

I'm fairly new here, so I thought I'd ask if someone more experienced thinks I would be justified to go ahead and do this. Ficaia (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The place to ask, Ficaia, is Talk:Greek Anthology. (If there's no response after a week or so, then try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
After that, if they don't reply at WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, (which maybe won't be possible) maybe try asking again here. Severestorm28 04:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ficaia: I'll build on the ideas above by suggesting that if there's no response at Talk:Greek Anthology after a week or so, then post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and ask them to reply to your post at Talk:Greek Anthology. After that, you could try asking here for people to reply to your post at Talk:Greek Anthology. The central conversation about the article should stay at the article's talk page. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Ficaia, I think that my response above was too brief. What you're proposing seems reasonable enough. However, I (and perhaps most of the people reading this "Tearoom" page) aren't knowledgable about the subject. People reading the article's talk page are more likely to be knowledgable. They're more likely to have a good idea of how greatly "List of translations and imitations from the Greek Anthology" or other sections of the article may/should or is likely to be expanded. The likely future of the article is important. As I view the article in its current state, I see no pressing reason for turning sections of it into autonomous articles, but imaginably there are other editors who'd dearly love to expand the content of the list if only the list weren't a mere section within an article whose growth has to be checked rather severely. -- Hoary (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll wait for a response on the talk page as you suggest. Ficaia (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

general knowledge[edit]

 175.157.122.50 (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

General knowledge questions should be asked at WP:RD RudolfRed (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Would you like to expound on what the problem is? 〜 ‍ ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ 💬reach out to me!・📝see my work! 04:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
General Knowledge deployed his forces against those of Major Disinformation in the info-wars of the early 21st century. The victor of the campaign is still disputed. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 11:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

what is tea house ???[edit]

 117.194.28.118 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC) I think it's a forum where users can ask and answer questions mostly about Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talkcontribs) 06:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a place where users can ask more experienced editors questions about Wikipedia. Philosophy2 (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It is very similar to the Help Desk, except that the Teahouse is intended to be an especially friendly place where new editors can ask very basic questions without feeling judged. Gronk Oz (talk) 01:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking something about Pandaily[edit]

Is Pandaily notable enough to write an article on Wikipedia? Enolajy (talk) 06:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Enolajy From Pandaily's own website: "Pandaily is a Beijing-based media company. Equipped with a deep understanding of China’s technology landscape and the unicorns that drive its innovation, our mission is to deliver premium content with contextual insights on Chinese technology, business, sports and culture to the worldwide community."
Looks to be a newsfeed accumulator. Wikipedia's guideline for corporations is at WP:NCORP. Essential to have several reliable-source references about Pandaily, or else don't bother to try, as would just be wasting your and Reviewer's time. David notMD (talk) 09:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talkcontribs) 01:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC) "From Pandaily's own....to the worldwide community" in the first paragraph is what I typed in my sandbox as practice. Is it be added by Wikipedia? Once, I tried to search "Pandaily" in the search bar and those content was presented to me.However, when I open a new page of Wikipedia, there was no search result. Does anyone know what happened? Need I delete the content and how can I delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enolajy (talkcontribs) 02:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed new section for an artice.[edit]

I've created a proposed new section for the film Born to Kill. I did it in my sandbox (first use of this tool) but I didn't submit it yet because it looks like that's really for full articles. What's the best way to get my proposal to the folks at WikiProjectFilm? I'm assuming a major addition like this from a new editor needs some kind of approval or consunsus. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Pete Best Beatles. Your sandbox can be used to develop new content for existing articles, as well as new articles. So, there is nothing wrong with what you are trying to do in the abstract. The problem is that the new content that you have written is unreferenced to reliable sources, and that is not acceptable. So, your next step should be to add references before you move the content from your sandbox to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It may not be formatted as in an actual article, but there is a reference on that page, at the bottom. So I guess the question is, do I hit the "Submit your draft for review" button an just sit back and wait? -- Pete Best Beatles (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Pete Best Beatles Do not submit it for AFC review, it will simply be declined because an article about the subject already exists. AFC only deals with new articles. The article's talk page is the first choice venue for discussing your addition. You can also drop a note at the WikiProject to alert interested editors to your proposal. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Waman Balaji Desai[edit]

This question is regarding the article posted by me http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Draft:Waman_Balaji_Desai Actually this is the writing of my grandfather. He has written a diary after his return from the world war 2 which I want to publish on wikipedia. Please guide me on how to do that. Sayalidesai087 (talk) 07:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Sayalidesai087. Unfortunately, what you're trying to do is not possible on Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles summarise what reliable, published and largely independent sources say about a topic. If books or newspaper articles have been written about your grandfather, then it might be possible for there to be an article based on those, but Wikipedia is not the place to publish his diary. You might want to consider setting up a blog or seek out a publisher instead. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Confirming that there is no way for Draft:Waman Balaji Desai to become a Wikipedia article. Please stop submitting it to AfC. As CL suggested, you can consider creating a blog at Google or elsewhere and putting all this content there. Or else creating a PDF document and printing copies to share with family and friends. David notMD (talk) 10:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
If the goal is to reliably preserve it for posterity, Wikipedia is certainly not the place to do that, for the reasons described above, and because it's subject to continuous editing. Why not upload it to the Internet archive? That seems like a much more appropriate option. Unlike a blog, it costs you nothing, and it exists precisely for the purpose of preserving the digital patrimony. EVhotrodder (talk) 12:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to Install wikilove ! I see it while using mobile browser. In PC nothing[edit]

Anybody help me to setup wikilove. I cannot access it while using google chrome PC. Because I need to appreciate people efforts  Onmyway22 talk 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Onmyway22 It should be there, a red heart under the alert-bell, on another user's talkpage. Were you logged in when you looked in Chrome? I think that's a must. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: cleared cache and got it Onmyway22 talk 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Best way to communicate with an editor who's unaware of talk pages (including their own)?[edit]

Any thoughts on the best way of communicating with an SPA who's persistently editing an article to add unsourced (though quite likely true) claims about himself? He doesn't seem to be aware of the existence of Talk pages, either the one associated with the article, or his own. Although this is clearly CoI editing, I don't believe it to be in bad faith, I think he's just clueless, and we've all been there at some point. I'm not asking how to get him blocked. How does one get a message in front of such a person? EVhotrodder (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The only other option would be to go to their user page and click the link that says "email this user". (This will not expose your email address.)--Shantavira|feed me 12:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Shantavira: Are you sure? I thought that emailing users did disclose the sender's email address. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it does. There's a bold warning in red text that reads "Your own email address will be shared" when you click on the email user link. MrOllie (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right; thanks for pointing that out.--Shantavira|feed me 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello EVhotrodder! A method I've seen used to communicate quickly to an Editor is to leave a message in an Edit summary on the page they are working on. While single minded editors may not be aware of their Talk page or the article's talk page, they are often aware of the View History page. Make a minor Edit & comment to them there to please read their Talk page or the article Talk page. Might get their attention so you can help explain what's being done wrong. Take care, LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. Put in a clickable link to their talk page to get them over there. Good idea. EVhotrodder (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s discord[edit]

So I joined the Wikipedia discord but I got kicked off for some reason. I read all the rules/instructions for the server and I didn’t break any of them all I said was hello. Now I can’t rejoin and it says that link is dead. Was it cause I had the thin blue line flags as my profile picture? Cause it’s been like that for a while I guess I can get rid of it if that’s why. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Hi there! Wikipedia:Discord has a "Join Server" button. The sentence above it states "The link is periodically changed and may at times be disabled". For more assistance, I suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Discord. You could also try Wikipedia:IRC as an alternative - see Wikipedia:IRC help disclaimer. GoingBatty (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kaleeb18 You have my sympathies. I can't comment on what happens off-wiki, but if it's of any consolation to you, I found my indefinitely blocked from IRC chat when I was an administrator, purely because I had logged on anonymously in order to visit for the very first time and to lurk a bit in order to find out how things operated there. Apparently lurking gets you banned, so how new users get to understand how a channel operates I have no idea. I gather some of the people who help run these chats are rather hypersensitive to issues around abuse from troublesome anonymous visitors. If you can identify who blocked you there, approach them on-wiki and explain your concerns. That's how I approached it, and was unblocked shortly afterwards. I have not been back since, and have little intention of working off wiki on these platforms, where accountability and control over what happens seems very much one-sided. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: How did you figure out who kicked you? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
He asked at the talk pages on-wiki for IRC, and was told by one of the chanops why he was kicked as a result. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 23:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kaleeb18 It was almost 2 years ago now, but if my memory serves me correctly, I think they were logged on to IRC chat with their normal username (as I would expect anyone in charge of such a platform to be doing). So it was simply a case of It was the fact that I had logged on anonymously that aroused their suspicions, despite me simply saying I wanted to lurk to see how things work (a pretty normal way I'd recommend anyone to understand the etiquette of a brand new platform). I've just visited WP:Discord for the first time, where it says it is wholly independent of Wikipedia/WMF. However, I see there are moderators listed at the bottom of that page, so I'd suggest contacting one of the active ones on their talk page and explaining your situation, and how you might have fallen foul of some unknown rule or policy, and seek to be unblocked. (I'm assuming you simply got kicked off because the system couldn't automatically authenticate you. In my case it was direct engagement with one of the editors who ran the place that resulted in my block - presumably because they didn't like how I answered their challenge as to what I was doing there I felt no need to tell them I was an admin, so I suspect many new users must have had similar unfortunate experiences. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes oh okay. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

how to format something on the left side of a page?[edit]

hello, how do you put something on the left? for example, on the right there is a userbox box. i want to know how to put this (and other things that default on the right) on the left.

 Cologne Blue(talk) 13:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Have you looked at the parameter | align at Template:Userboxtop#Parameters? --David Biddulph (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
i don't think you read my question correctly. i gave the userboxtop as a example, not the only thing i want on the left. Cologne Blue(talk) 15:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Cologne Blue. Each template varies, but most usually involve specifying "left" in some sort of parameter. See these examples below:
  • {{Userboxtop|i want this on the left, not the right|align=left}} (userboxtop template)
  • [[File:Paper Mario The Thousand Year Door Combat.png|left|caption]] (image)
  • {{Wikibreak|align=left}} (Wikibreak or other notice templates)
Panini!🥪 15:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Dengeki no Shin Bungei's merger to other Article and Declining Draft Articles[edit]

Hi. This is the first time I talked in Teahouse. I need to ask how to merge one of my draft article, Draft:Dengeki no Shin Bungei to the other articles, like ASCII Media Works in Light Novel's Publishing Imprints (same with my first deleted article, Kadokawa Books, which merged to Fujimi Shobo), due to lack of notability for references. It such run around the circle for finding the reliable sources, and still didn't meet my criteria to include for reference.

Also why the other two of my drafts declined? And how it works for notability references for make a company as an encyclopedia rather than advertising? Anyway, the two drafts are Draft:GC Novels and Draft:Kadokawa Beans Bunko (The last one is still curious why it declined, although I used reliable sources (for this case Anime News Network (ANN)) for add the reference). Kurogaga (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@CricketXP: Welcome to the Teahouse! Before adding the information in Draft:Dengeki no Shin Bungei to ASCII Media Works, I suggest posting at Talk:ASCII Media Works to discuss how much detail would be appropriate to add. Draft:GC Novels and Draft:Kadokawa Beans Bunko were declined because they do not contain multiple independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the company. See the pink "Submission declined" box at the top of each draft (and the yellow boxes on your user talk page) for multiple links to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Your three drafts are lists of what the company has published, not encyclopedia articles about the companies. GoingBatty (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@CricketXP. Welcome to the Teahouse - thanks for visiting for the first time. As far as I can tell, Draft:Dengeki no Shin Bungei is just a listing of books produced by an imprint (alternative name) for another publishing company, ASCII Media Works. All you need to do is mention the name in that article in a single sentence. This encyclopaedia is not a site to list everything a company produces - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Your draft, and that of the others you mention seem to be purely that. Just a list of publications is insufficient for an article about the trading name of another company, even if earlier pages were created for some of them. The referencing for all these myriad of entries seems non-existent, too. To meet company notability, your need to find at least three, reliable and independent sources which talk in detail and in depth about the business - not just listing what they sell. I wouldn't expect an article about a major global supermarket chain to list all the own-brands they stock, or to have separate articles about branches they have in each country. Wikipedia would become far too bloated with trivia, when ll one needs is one external link to a published stocklist to serve the same purpose. I'm sorry, but I feel exactly the same about these book listings, which really only serve as an advertisement for their products and not as an encyclopaedia of information about the business itself. Does that make any sense? Nick Moyes (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Where is Special K!?[edit]

 2601:882:101:570:0:0:0:1D33 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Right here: Special K. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Perhaps they were referring to Special:K, a page which does not exist. Maybe some pioneering soul will make it a reality someday. It'd be a pretty rad April Fools' joke. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Kyrgios and Kokkinakis are still in Melbourne I think. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 08:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Che Holloway[edit]

Why isn't the article for Che Holloway (actor) showing up on Google? Seems this article was approved. Chariotzz (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

New articles are NOINDEXed until they have either been reviewed through new page patrol or 90 days have expired. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@David Biddulph: Is there a way to tell whether an article has been reviewed? --Gronk Oz (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gronk Oz: The log for the article (accessible via the history) would show if it had been reviewed. Also, Special:NewPagesFeed can be filtered by username to show which articles created by Chariotzz are still unreviewed. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Smile.gif Thanks. --Gronk Oz (talk) 01:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Error in Google Search Entry[edit]

The Google result that list the entry for the Wikipedia article on Louise Brown says she was born in 1869. She was born in 1978--she is famous because she was the first child born using IVF. I hope someone can fix this. Thanks. ```` 73.247.148.54 (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not say Louise Brown was born in 1869. If you click on the link it says 1978. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
It does say 1869 on the google search, but that is because google search engines don’t pick up on the latest edits right away, but it will eventually show the latest version of the article. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Potentially related to issues with the Google Knowledge Graph, which pulls information from many sources in an unclear way RudolfRed (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What kind of sites acts as a relevant subject to reference in wikipedia?[edit]

Hello there,

Draft:Mercans - HRM and Payroll I've been doing research on this organization finding news posts from google news/ publishers and writing the content in my language. But the article gets declined all the time. I understand that writing Wikipedia articles are not a simple task, but I could not figure out why my articles get declined. References I used are from trustable resources. If you have any criteria for reference sites please let me know. Priyajith2022 (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Draft:Mercans - HRM and Payroll Karenthewriter (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
You need independent reliable WP:SECONDARY sources. Reviewers have left clear comments that press releases are not acceptable sources. If you can not find WP:THREE independent sources, there is little chance the article will be accepted. Also see WP:PROMO, WP:COI and WP:PAID as your sole focus has been creating this article and gives the appearance you have a vested interest in its publication.Slywriter (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Vigilante[edit]

Why isn't Bernhard Goetz on the page explaining Vigilantism? 76.97.122.19 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Please direct any comments about the vigilantism article to its talk page, Talk:Vigilantism. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

How can I improve this article?[edit]

The article is Nawab Mir Khudrath Nawaz Jung Bahadur. I noticed this article in the Recent changes when someone added a lot of subjective prose. I reverted this and added some cleanup templates. But I don't think that this will realistically lead to improvement. How would an experienced editor with an interest in this area work on this article to make it significantly better? twsabin 18:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: That article seems like it needs copyediting and more sources to verify information. You can do it yourself whenever you want, be WP:BOLD --The Tips of Apmh 18:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, @Twsabin: you have done the right thing with adding those templates, but if you want to take it a step further you can do things like replace citation needed templates with reliable sources. Also you can start expanding the article by adding to new sections and maybe even creating a new section. You can also fix any grammar problems you see. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess I will try to perform a basic face-lift on what's already in the article. twsabin 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@The Tips of Apmh: An update: I made some changes to the article and the editor that I had reverted returned, added substantial unsourced content and removed the cleanup templates. Please advise me on what I should do now (if anything)? Thanks. twsabin 20:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted their changes and left a message on their talk page. Stop back here if problem continues, though I suspect several sets of eyes are on the article now.Slywriter (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted their edit and reported them to AIV. They are now blocked from editing that page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've removed some Non-NPOV terms and made various grammatical corrections. There is more to be done and then the issue of not having more than one source. --ARoseWolf 21:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

how do i sign arcticles with a AfD[edit]

Im Gonna sign this arcticle as afd because it would be better if it was just a section in the nWo arctile. TzarN64 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@TzarN64: Hello TzarN64! Before you send that article off to AFD, there are some things you have to do first or else the AFD won't go all that well. Take a look at WP:BEFORE for what you should do before nominating an article for deletion. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Blue World Order has been an article for many years, edited by scores of people. First, propose on the talk page why you believe it better incorporated into NW0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David notMD (talkcontribs) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation suggestions[edit]

Translation suggestions.png

I get translation suggestions like these ones on English language Wikipedia pages, but I would like the same kind of suggestions to appear to help me translate pages into English on non-English Wikipedias. How can I make this appear? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2022 (UTC):

Hello, MaitreyaVaruna, and welcome to the Teahouse. The answer to your question is that you will need to ask at each separate edition of Wikipedia you want to work in. Each Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and procedures, and sometimes differences in how they present the software. But the list you presented in the screenshot is not a list of translation suggestions (or, at least, not intended that way) but a list of links to existing articles in other Wikipedias on the same subject as the current article. They may or may not be translations (they could be anything from a direct translation to a completely independent article), but I don't see how they are "translation suggestions". See Translation for information about translating articles in general. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
ColinFine you gave useful information, but for that article the Dutch French and Japanese articles are a different color because they do not exist, that article only exists in Chinese and English. Do you know where I could talk to people involved with software development on this? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
ColinFine Following up with saying that I figured out what let me do it. Each Wikipedia only registers you as bilingual when you translate into the Wikipedia, and not when you translate from it. So by translating something into Japanese Wikipedia (as a draft article because I don't know Japanese enough to do a high quality translation into Japanese), I managed to get Japanese Wikipedia to suggest me to translate articles from it to English. I will try to let the software developers know that they should make it go both ways when someone translates an article MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, MaitreyaVaruna. I wasn't aware of the possibility of red links in the language list, and I'm wondering how they are specified: indeed, where is this documented? I would like to investigate it, but you do not say what article that screenshot is from? (I thought that you might have put it in the image dscription when you uploaded it, as most of Wikipedia's content is released under CC-BY-SA, and you may freely reuse it as long as you attribute the source. But you have uploaded that screenshot as "own work" and without attribution, which I'm pretty sure is a violation of copyright. I don't know how Wikipedia's interface is licensed, but I doubt that it is more permissive than the content).
I'm also unaware of the concept of Wikipedia registering users as bilingual, and again I cannot find anywhere that explains or even mentions this possibility - or is it only in some Wikipedias and not in en-wiki? --ColinFine (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Changing names of categories[edit]

I wish to change a number of categories to different names because they were mistranslated. Specifically http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Category:Gion_faith http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Category:Hachiman_faith http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Category:Inari_faith http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Category:Kumano_faith and http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Category:Suwa_faith should all have the word "faith" replaced with cult, because they relate to cults of specific deities. Faith is the suggested term by google translate and deepl but it does not accurately describe them, and other European languages translate these titles as "cult" MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello MaitreyaVaruna. The best place to discuss this would be Categories for discussion; but I suggest you also put a note on WT:WikiProject Japan linking to the discussion at CFD. --ColinFine (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

What are the best practices to write an article[edit]

What are the best practices to write an article Adeelkhanwwc (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adeelkhanwwc: Check out WP:YFA for some tips on how to get started. RudolfRed (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
New editors who attempt as their very first efforts a new article, as you have at Draft:Huma Batool, often fail because they have no idea of th requirements to establish notability. Your resubmitted draft will be Declined again because most of the content is not referenced. All references must be embedded in the text rather than put under References (the software automatically shows the refs under References). David notMD (talk) 21:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Adeelkhanwwc, your draft includes the extraordinary claim that Ms. Batool has earned the unprecedented honour for Pakistan of being the first ever woman owner of an airline not only in Pakistan but in 100 years of world aviation history but you have not added any references to reliable independent published sources that verify that claim. There is no way that such a poorly referenced draft will be accepted. Cullen328 (talk) 06:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Adeelkhanwwc: If the statement was backed up with reliable independent published sources, we would write it in an encyclopedic way, such as "Batool was the first woman owner of an airline." GoingBatty (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Correcting a mistake in a cited source.[edit]

In an article on a prominent media personality, details about her parentage are included, and referenced by a frivolous reference in a weekend magazine. This reference has been used in more than one location, and has distorted more than one Wikipedia entry. There is no printed reference that I know of that contradicts this weekend magazine reference, but the personalities concerned, three of them, are all alive and well.

How can this be corrected? Bonobashi (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bonobashi. There's nothing anyone here can do to correct how something is being reported in a third-party source other than perhaps to contact the source directly and explain to them what's incorrect and why. Sometimes a source will "admit" its mistake and post a retraction or correction, but that might depend upon the type of source it is source and how much it has to lose. Usually, it's the subject or someone directly connected to the subject who needs to make the effort to get this information corrected since the subject is most directly affected by the mistake.
In a Wikipedia sense, you can discuss the source in question on the talk page of the article where it's being cited and explain what the problem is. If there are conflicting sources, then there might be a way to better clarify the information in question as explained in WP:CONFLICTINGSOURCES. If the source is considered to be non-reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, then the content can possibly be removed if a better more reliable source cannot be found to support it or revised accordingly to reflect what reliable sources have actually said on the matter. Even in cases where the source might be considered reliable, the content in question might be of questionable encyclopedic relevance to Wikipedia's readers and could also be removed. However, reaching such a conclusion often requires quite a bit of discussion and WP:CONSENSUS building (unless the content is so problematic that it needs to removed asap). There are a couple of noticeboards like Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where you can seek input from others, but generally the best place to start is on the relevant article's talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
If understand the situation correctly, the article on Radhika Roy states, with a reference, that her father's name was Sooraj Lal Das, a Bengali engineer, whereas you hold true that her father's name was Suraj Lal Dass, not a Bengali engineer. Given that there is no claim that her father was himself notable, consider removing all mention of him. David notMD (talk) 22:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Strange things at Kingdom_of_Bonny[edit]

I was just looking at recent changes, and noticed something weird going on at Kingdom_of_Bonny. An IP editor has added an enormous amount of information written in a very wordy and unencyclopaedic fashion. It's hugely complicated and probably too much detail, but the unusual feature is that they've actually referenced sources. But the referencing is written long-hand in the text, and they've quoted extensively from it, but not in a way that makes it clear what's a direct quotation and what isn't. I don't quite know whether this sort of edit is normally just reverted - but that seems unfair as they seem to be adding genuine information. But it can't stand as it is, and I can't understand it well enough to rewrite it - nor can I sort out the quotes as the sources are books that I do not have. I think the article could do with attention from someone more experienced than me! Or should it just be reverted? Elemimele (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC) Elemimele (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

No worries, someone's reverted the lot. Elemimele (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I did the "R" stage of WP:BRD Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Urgent Help with my account[edit]

How are you? I set up my account on wikipedia, but not sure on how to have my profile come up on google search. I am a film producer (http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/King_of_Boys:_The_Return_of_the_King). I urgently need help with making my profile visible on google search. I cannpt sadly even set up my account to be linked to the movie I worked on. Not sure how to do this either. Can i also upload a photo? I just really need help building up my career. Joy Nnamdi-Yusuf (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for promotion. See WP:NOT. There is no urgent need for anything to show up in Google. If you are notable, someone may write an article about you someday. RudolfRed (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@Joy Nnamdi-Yusuf Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm afraid that until someone meets out Notability Criteria that there is no place for an article about them on Wikipedia. You are free to write about yourself on IMdB or LinkedIn if you wish. Both are sources we would never use here, but you may find this more suitable for your needs. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Joy Nnamdi-Yusuf. In most cases, experienced Wikipedia editors studiously ignore "urgent" requests for new articles or improved Google search results here. Our job is to build a neutral encyclopedia and it is most definitely not to aid your yearnings for better Google search results. That is pretty much the opposite of how we operate here. In summary, we do not care even a tiny little bit about your Google search results. That is your business, not ours. Cullen328 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixing Sources[edit]

Hi! We're currently working on Encanto Character List and we aren't sure how to cite the sources of the movie and soundtrack? Any help will be appreciated! (: -Isabela Skeleton RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) (pronouns) 23:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@RemusSandersRegretsEverything: Welcome to the teahouse. Yes, I have watched Encanto (film), it is amazing. Anyway, you can type in
{{cite web|url=|title=|work=|date=|access-date=}}

Just fill in the blanks right next to the "equal signs". Happy editing! Severestorm28 00:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28 Thank you!! I really like it too- although I'm pretty biased (: -Isabela Skeleton RemusSandersRegretsEverything (talk) (pronouns) 17:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing[edit]

How do I link to a non-disambiguation page? TGKingBooTheGreat (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@TGKingBooTheGreat: Welcome to the teahouse. Yes, you can link to a non-disambiguation page, it is just when you link to a specific article, for example, big is a disambiguation page. However, to link to a non-disambiguation page, the article needs to be specific, not just big, but it can be this specific article, Big (film). To replace with other text, type the non-disambiguation page, and place a '|' in the middle. Then type the words after the '|'. Severestorm28 00:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@TGKingBooTheGreat: I guess you noticed a "Tag: Disambiguation links added" tacked onto the edit history, like here? To fix it, I would click/tap through to Noggin, and notice that there's a Noggin (brand) listed. But to avoid it in the first place, I like to use the add-link button in the desktop WikiEditor or Visual Editor toolbars. These will do a search and list some likely matches in a drop-down. ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 08:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Creation of possibly un-notable article[edit]

Creating a possibly removable article

I was searching through the list of wanted wikipedia articles that have not yet been created, when I discovered one missing on Heinrich II of Reuss-Lobenstein. It is linked as a non-existent article almost 50 times, yet little information exists on him. I am considering creating a stub article, but I was wondering if this would be allowed as it does not fit the criteria of 3 independent sources. Moostcho (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Moostcho: Welcome to the teahouse. I don't know if this is the right article, but it is possibly. Heinrich LXXII, Prince Reuss of Lobenstein and Ebersdorf If it is wrong, please ping me, and I will try to help you. Severestorm28 00:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk page[edit]

How to clear my own talk page? Old discussions? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mukesh.kfc, welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to clear your talk page, it is recommended that you archive the page, conversely, you can simply blank the page if you don't want to archive old discussions. Justiyaya 00:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Welcome to the teahouse. The two options are: Delete everything in your talk page, or set up archive like this:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| archive=User talk:Severestorm28/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| maxarchivesize=75K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=4
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}

Just copy-paste, then add to your talk page. Severestorm28 00:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

How to clear active discussion which now closed/completed? No use of them now.Mukesh.kfc (talk) 00:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Mukesh.kfc, I don't know what you mean by an "active" but also "closed/completed" discussion. If you consider a discussion to be active, I don't know why you'd want to clear it. If on the other hand it's closed/completed, Severestorm28 has described two methods above. -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mukesh.kfc: The Archive solution above will automatically archive discussions that have been inactive for 90 days. It is a great "set and forget" option to keep your User Talk page from growing so big it's unwieldy, while not involving any more effort to maintain it. Or if you prefer, you can just delete stuff you don't want any more.--Gronk Oz (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphan article tag[edit]

Please explain this? How to remove this tag? Mukesh.kfc (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The word orphan in that tag is in blue, indicating that it is a wikilink, in this case to WP:Orphan. --David Biddulph (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy: Mukesh.kfc likely asking about Jasnath Temple. David notMD (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Mukesh.kfc. Please read Wikipedia:Orphan. An orphan article is one that has no incoming wikilinks. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that readers can navigate from an article about one topic to another relevant topic by clicking on various links within the article. Ideally, every article should have one or more links to it from other related articles. Cullen328 (talk) 03:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Means it is mandatory for any new article to have link from another wikipedia article. Right?
--Mukesh.kfc (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
No, not mandatory, but "... it is preferable that they can also be reachable by links from related pages". --David Biddulph (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Bait and Switch[edit]

So why doesn't Wikipedia put a big header at the top of each Wikipedia article warning readers that they may be reading erroneous information from the sources people are citing, such as modern magazine articles, where the writer made numerous errors even though the magazine itself is considered reliable? I have seem such cases and the editor I questioned robotically replied that we must use the secondary source even if it is incorrect rather than the primary source which is an official document? They say reporting truth even if the secondary source is wrong is the antithesis of Wikipedia since Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. They don't have to use it if it seems to have wrong information but they do anyway, apparently because they want to, which kind of seems like administrator approved trolling.

Wikipedia claims to be an encyclopedia, yet it admits it is not a reliable source: http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source . When people think of normal encyclopedias like Britannica or World Book, they assume it is an authoritative source that has been vetted for errors, not something with an 80/20 or 50/50 chance of being right. I have been in situations where I quoted the Oxford Dictionary of the English Language to someone to support an argument and they quoted Wikipedia having a different answer and thought it was better. Again, why isn't there a big warning on the Wikipedia article pages? I was an editor on Wikipedia for a year and a half before I figure out how much misinformation an article written by experienced editors and vetted by an experienced administrator because someone complained to an administrator and they sent a gang of "experienced editors" over to demonstrate the proper way to present misinformation as an encyclopedia. It seems very intellectually dishonest to keep that page I linked above burrowed away and something of a bait and switch to most people.Daltonsatom (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't do that because we include a link to our disclaimers, including WP:General disclaimer, in the footer of each page. And we go for verifiability over truth because "truth" is subject to our own cognitive and cultural biases. Rather than just blindly lambaste me for that sentence, I suggest you read every single blue link in it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
5 point font at the very bottom. Just saw this for the first time using Wikipedia for 20 years. Thanks. It's kind of like those waiver's you accept when you accept the required EULA for your smart phone. 20% to 50% chance the information you get from an administrator vetted article may be incorrect.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talkcontribs) 05:24, January 26, 2022 (UTC)
Rather than grouse endlessly and take potshots at editors who are doing their damnedest to improve the article, why not actually try talking to them instead? Ranting and raging as you're doing here has a 0% chance of being effective. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 05:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, we're talking about things that affect real people reading it and associated with the article. Considering what I should do. You've helped me decide. Not pot shots, but a life changing decision. Thanks again. No more questions. Pencils down.Daltonsatom (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Daltonsatom: Being "the encyclopaedia that anybody can edit" has proven to be something of a mixed blessing - Wikipedia has grown to be an incredible resource, but people do make bad edits, either maliciously or with good intentions. I have a couple of points to offer: firstly, Admins don't review articles. Secondly, if you find that an article has used an erroneous source, the best thing to do is to either provide a better one, or to put your case on the article's Talk page. Discuss the relative merits of the two sources with other editors until there is agreement. You don't provide any details, so we can't comment on the particular situation you came across. Finally, people from an academic background often struggle with Wikipedia's preference for secondary sources - I know I did. But a primary source is not "the official source" and in time it often proves unreliable, or at least biased. A good secondary source adds that author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Any analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim must have been published by a reliable secondary source. There is a good article explaining the rationale in medical contexts at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Respect_secondary_sources; even though this talks about a biomedical context, the logic still holds.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Gronk Oz, the context is at Talk:Intellivision Amico. Daltonsatom's in the middle of a content dispute there. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't really call it a dispute and it makes question everything.Daltonsatom (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You're contesting what content should be on the page and how it should be presented, ergo it is a content dispute. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
You really want to do this here? I get my head bit off and threatened with COI and POV by the administrator when I try to talk to the editor and I thought my questions were going pretty easy on him, thought I was doing what was right. No one here probably thinks I am and that is a problem. It is not a dispute in that it is being cowed into something I don't believe in based on silly premises like having the ambition to get a high quality image and thought to be COI for it or being a minor editor so not spreading myself around a lot. You HAVE to spread yourself around or admins will think your a COI I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talkcontribs) 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to be discreet, but I guess I'm famous - against my better judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daltonsatom (talkcontribs) 07:04, January 26, 2022 (UTC)
You can't be "threatened" with WP:COI (that is a description of an editor's status and is not in itself blockable) or WP:POV (that's a criticism of article content). —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 07:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what your point is. I don't want to guess.Daltonsatom (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Daltonsatom, now you know our dirty secret. ;) I suspect if I was exposed to the behind-the-scenes machinations and argy-bargy of a traditional newsroom or publishing house, then I would be similarly shocked and disillusioned. When I pick up a tabloid newspaper, I don't need a warning banner (the screaming headlines do that well enough): I already know there are going to be some proportion of poor-quality articles in there. Blatantly poor writing and research aren't that hard for a reader to spot, but I suspect the only ways to detect subtle bias is to (a) be a part of the production process, (b) be attuned to the dog whistles, or (c) read a variety of sources and compare coverage. That applies to Wikipedia articles just as much as other media. lectorem cave ⁓ Pelagicmessages ) 09:51, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Steven Salowsky[edit]

Salutations all! I am very new here and working on my first several articles.. how can I inquire and go about getting help to achieve publish success? Here's what I have thus far...

Hidden: Thecarguru2 pasted entire draft here. Draft since edited and is at Draft:Steven Salowsky. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended content
Steven Salowsky is an American YouTuber and environmental activist that co-hosts on the Rich Rebuild YouTube Channel .


Biography[edit]

Steven Salowsky is an American YouTuber that co-hosts the vlog known as Rich Rebuilds YouTube Channel <ref> http://www.youtube.com/richrebuilds </ref>) [1] He is a former Tesla employee that went on to building and designing electric vehicles along side his friend and colleague, Rich Benoit. Their first build together is the first electric Motorcycle to Rat rod conversion with a 1930's Ford Model A that was covered in Motor Trend <ref> http://www.motortrend.com/news/budget-built-prewar-hot-rod-powered-by-an-electric-motor-and-control-system/ </ref> [2]. After their first conversion success and getting over 2 million views, Steven and Rich designed and built a version of the Tesla Cyberquad, and Steven drove it over 100 MPH in a tank top and flip-flops. <ref>http://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-cyberquad-impressive-diy-project </ref> [3] Popular Mechanics took notice of their ambitions and complimented the feat. <ref> http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a33805875/homemade-tesla-cyberquad-atv/ </ref> [4] Pushing the boundaries with a Tesla Model S that was in a flood, Steven and Rich designed and built the World's first V8 engine powered Tesla, which was ironically featured in a Car and Driver issue devoted to Electric vehicle's. <ref> http://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877615/v-8-camaro-ss-engine-in-tesla-model-s/ </ref> [5]

Steven is a prolific environmentalist whom advocates for renewable energy and sustainable technologies, and he holds office in his local town as a Board of Director member for the Sustainability department <ref> http://sustainablewestford.org/about-us/ </ref> [6] He is known for designing and building a version of the Tesla Cyberquad, and piloting it over 100 MPH in a tank top and flip-flops. <ref>http://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-cyberquad-impressive-diy-project </ref> [3] Steven and Rich Benoit also built the World's first V8 engine powered Tesla. <ref> http://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877615/v-8-camaro-ss-engine-in-tesla-model-s/ </ref> [4]


As of January 2022, his YouTube channel has 1.29 Million subscribers.

References[edit][edit]


http://www.youtube.com/richrebuilds [1]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/budget-built-prewar-hot-rod-powered-by-an-electric-motor-and-control-system/ [2]

http://www.inverse.com/innovation/tesla-cyberquad-impressive-diy-project [3]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/a33805875/homemade-tesla-cyberquad-atv/ [4]

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/a36877615/v-8-camaro-ss-engine-in-tesla-model-s/ [5]

http://sustainablewestford.org/about-us/ [6]

Thecarguru2 (talk) 05:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thecarguru2. The Teahouse is a place to ask questions and get answers about how to edit Wikipedia. It is not a place to ask for feedback on a bunch of poorly formatted UTLs. I happen to be interested in custom cars and motorcycles, but there is almost nothing here that motivates me to want to look deeper. You need to write more clearly and learn how to format your references properly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Your draft links to Rich Benoit, Salowsky's vlog partner. Look at that to see what properly formate and inserted refs look like (although I question the validity of some of thos refs). David notMD (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearing the edit request backlog?[edit]

Is there a way to close answered edit requests on talk pages so they don't appear on the backlog? Is it acceptable practice to disable the {{edit semi-protected}} template by using {{t1}}? Rolmops23 (talk) 07:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rolmops23: You can use the "answered" parameter. For example, {{Edit semi-protected|Vukky}} becomes {{Edit semi-protected|Vukky|answered=yes}}. Vukky TalkGuestbook 08:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Tried using {{ESp}} in a reply. It marks it answered automatically. Rolmops23 (talk) 08:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

doi number problem[edit]

I just created my first original content (other than plot summaries), a new section to Born to Kill (1947 film): "Multifaceted Femme Fatale." I thought I did the reference correctly, but the doi# showed up in the reference (# 15), unlike all the others. I entered the number into the template because it made me. Pete Best Beatles (talk) 07:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Journal ref template asks for a doi, but optional as long as something in the ref links. I replaced the not-working URL, which now goes to the same hyperlink as the doi. David notMD (talk) 09:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Pete Best Beatles This is about the section and ref you added to Born to Kill (1947 film). You also, in a wrong approach, created Draft:Born to Kill (1947 film). Tag your draft for deletion. To do so, at the top, type Db-g7 inside double curly brackets {{ }}. This will signal an Administrator to delete it. David notMD (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Union Bank (Bangladesh)[edit]

I want to create the mentioned article. Can anyone check if the sources are good? Dawnpenguin (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

 188.70.60.160 (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Asking us to sort through sources on Google is like giving us a magnet and a barn-sized haystack and telling us to find a bone needle. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 10:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Which is another way of saying that it would be better for you, Dawnpenguin, with presumably some knowledge of banking, to put the three or four best sources you choose that demonstrate the notability of this particular bank here into this Help Desk thread and then experienced editors will be able to assess them before you start an article. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
|To phrase it a little more diplomatically, Dawnpenguin: at least half the work in writing a Wikipedia article is in finding and evaluating the sources, so what you are saying is "I want to write an article. Can anyone do most of the work for me?" I suggest you choose the three most promising sources, and list them here, and people might be willing to have a look at them. Promising sources will be published in reliable places, will be wholly independent of the bank (and that includes not being based on press releases, or from associates of the bank), and will contain significant coverage of the bank, not just mentions or reports of routine activities. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Repeated verbiage in multiple articles[edit]

Regarding these articles about the Bahamas: Progressive Liberal Party http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Progressive_Liberal_Party, Free National Movement http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Free_National_Movement, and Philip Davis (Bahamian politician) http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Philip_Davis_(Bahamian_politician)#Prime_Minister. All three of these have a paragraph that begins, "In September 2021, Progressive Liberal Party won..." or something very similar. In fact, the entire paragraph is almost identical in all three. (There may be more articles with the same paragraph, but those are the ones I've spotted so far.) This feels to me like it's less than best practice, but I can't think of an actual reason for feeling that way. Is there a policy or recommendation about this? Dgndenver (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Dgndenver (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Dgndenver I occasionally use the same sentence in multiple articles that relate to the same topic. Providing they're correct and relevant, a simple statement can be used again and again without fear. The only proviso is if you've copied text that another editor wrote without crediting the source page from which you got it. But using a single, short sentence as a statement in multiple places doesn't concern me. As always - it depends on context. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

RE: Writing an Historical Book about my fathers World War 2 1940 to 1944 including some documents sourced via Wikipeadia[edit]

I have over the last 25 years been putting together my fathers experiences during World War 2 - 1940 to 1944 using his memorabilia. The book includes documents that have been sourced from Wikipeadia, such as RAF Padgate, RAF West Kirby, SS Franconia, HMS Manchester, Battle of Cape Spartivento, HMS Furious, RAF Takoradi, RAF 73 Squadron, RAF 39 Squadron, Tobruk 1941 to 1942, Battles of El Alamein, Foggia Airfield Complex, Operation Avalanche - Invasion of Italy. I am trying to establish if the above listed documents found on Wikipeadia, whilst having copyright applied can be authorised for use in my book? The Book will make reference to the above documents as recognition of the sources used.

How do I get the authors consent? 82.46.183.131 (talk) 11:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand "documents that have been sourced from [Wikipedia]"; but does Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content answer your question? -- Hoary (talk) 12:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I need help with my first article[edit]

Hi all!

I recently published a draft and they gave it back to me, saying I didn't cite enough credible sources. Okay, I agree with that. But what about small companies that make a good and important product, that are written about by online subject sites, but are not written about by the Times and Guardian? And why do I see such companies' pages added to Wikipedia, but not mine?

If you can - please take a look at my draft and tell me what sources would work, so I know what direction to go in. Dmitrii Kolosov (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Getscreen.me. Theroadislong (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmitrii Kolosov Welcome to the Teahouse. I fear that the company you want to write about simply won't ever generate the kind of attention that would result in detailed, in-depth articles being written about them, other than those within insider magazines. That's not to say that the products and services from those companies are not important. But there are millions upon millions upon millions of companies making good, important and often life-saving products which will never, ever meet the criteria of having had the world's attention drawn to them in a way that Wikipedia recognises as its Notabilty bar for inclusion. For businesses and corporations, a minimum of three detailed, in depth articles would be needed in mainstream publications of one sort or another, and I don't mean ones that you were then paid to write and then p[aid to use on Wikipedia as simple WP:PROMOTION. See WP:NCORP for a further explanation. I'm really sorry about this; I hope no money has changed hands. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Hi, Nick! Thanks for your answer. I work for this company, so no money was given to me. Almost all of our competitors are in Wikipedia and it is very strange to hear that this kind of software will never get into it. We have over 50,000 customers all over the world. Apparently, we just have to wait until they write an article in some Washington Post)Dmitrii Kolosov(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dmitrii Kolosov Anyone employed any company is 100% being paid to write for Wikipedia - even if they do it in their spare bedroom at home in the evening. But I see you have already declared your own paid connection - so thank you. Unfortunately, in a way you are correct - yes, it requires major press or publisher interest being shown in a company to meet WP:NCORP. Because Wikipedia is not a promotional tool, you are welcome to tell us which other companies also fail to meet that standard. We are constantly clearing out articles that were put here for just that purpose, yet aren't really notable as such -especially since our criteria on organisations has been tightened up. See WP:AFD for information on that process. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Article[edit]

Hi Celestina007, Hope you’re doing good. I want to ask you that if a news website or organisation has got few awards, getting selected in google news initiative and have much many information present like about the founder and news coverage. Should that article be written on Wikipedia? Arunpawargere (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Arunpawargere, presumably this is about two current discussions at AfD. The best way to have an AfD end with an article being kept is to find independent, secondary reliable sources. Press releases, paid press, and annoucements about awards do not contribute to WP:Notability and are unlikely to convince other editors that the articles should be kept. I would suggest you ask for the articles to be sent to draft so you can work on improving them without the pressure of a deletion discussion and submit them through WP:AFC when they are suitably sourced.Slywriter (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, if you have a question for a specific editor, consider using their talkpage, in this case User talk:Celestina007. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Per Slywriter and PQR01, this appears to be about the AfDs at People News Chronicle and Youthistaan, which are connected companies. At both, at least several of the references contain identical language to the articles in question, and thus are clearly derived from press releases. David notMD (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, given that your editing of the first dates back only a few days, and you created the second on 26 January, I am asking whether your connection to the topics are either paid or conflict of interest. David notMD (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Lastly, to both articles, there have been edits from several IP addresses that start with 2409:4053. If this is you, stop editing not logged in. Such behaviour is against Wikipedia policy. David notMD (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Trying to figure what to do with article[edit]

Hello! So I recently came across the very new article Lucknow Super Giants that has been edited a lot by new users an IPs. I started a discussion on the talk page to try and figure out what edits are constructive and what edits aren't constructive, however the user that I addressed on the talk page hasn't really helped with that and has insisted the page be protected (which I requested it to be protected just so I would have something to tell them as to why it can't be protected), so I would like some help from other editors in figuring out what edits are and aren't constructive. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Blaze Wolf, head over to the WP:WikiProject_Cricket, the regulars there will likely be helpful in getting the article into shape.Slywriter (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: It looks like you have taken the right steps and you should also talk at WikiProject cricket like Slywriter said. I think some of the unconstructive edits on there is when one of the editors makes a new section and puts nothing in it and completely blanks a section without saying why. It also looks like some edits are just vandalism. Also EvergreenFir has protected the page so it looks like the page should’ve been protected rather than not. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Huh. I was refraining from requesting the page to be protected mainly because I couldn't figure out what edits were constructive and what edits weren't. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, some of the unconstructive edits look like this edit and other edits by Ggbvv as well as all the edits made by Cusptrek including this one. Also edits made by the sockpuppet MrDoggo24 are unconstructive edits. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Continuing on the subject of my submission of article on the Musee francais by Pierre Laurent (title modified from Le Musee royal).[edit]

How do I reply to comments/criticism of previous versions of this article? Here is what I would like to say ... 1.) “Puffery”, in this instance/subject, is a historical fact. Assuming that the observation is not intended to disallow the sources already cited for these opinions, I have tried to bring forward their documentation, perhaps, clarifying its basis without confusing the narrative (?) For example, the comment of the publication’s “perfection” is in fact quoted from the reports of 2 governmental juries (this is now referenced). My use of the term “brilliance” is a conventional characterization of the information conveyed by a traditional successful engraving (etchings, which employ irregular lines, are not usually described this way). The tone of superlative accomplishment is an important feature of this subject – e.g. why else would Napoleon recognize the publication with an act of state (see note 2)? -- this event alone would seem to establish the subject’s historical interest. Btw, I suppose all of my references to journalism of the period can be verified in Retronews. 2.) The comment that the article lacks authoritative references has been addressed by adding references ... I hope, without confusing the reader. Please advise if there need to be further private exchanges on this subject. While there’s obviously not sufficient interest to publish a complete bibliography in Wikipedia, I’ve added a reference to the very thorough one compiled by Peter Fuhring. In any case, the references previously provided carry historical authority. The journal Les Nouvelles de l’estampe (note 2) is an official outlet for scholarship of the National Library of France – and the principal French outlet for scholarship in the field of print history; the cited article deals with the publication and its official reception in detail. The journal Gazette des Beaux-Arts was, in its day, the leading international journal for art historical scholarship of French art. There’s also Weissert’s book, which is quite scholarly, and the extensive discussion of the subject in Sgarbi’s publication. Why have reviewers disregarded the standing of these sources, in their preoccupation with the inclusion of an exceptional masters thesis? 2 of the additional references are in English and subsequent to Fuhring’s bibliography. 3.) And why is McKee's masters thesis so different from others? To begin with, it is the only cited reference for further information in the library cataloguing of the Musée français at the Royal Academy in London, as noted in the article, and also in the catalogue of the National Library of France: <http://catalogue.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cb40282999b>; likewise, it is noted at the head of all other references in the art historical resource begun by Fritz Lugt in the 1920’s and continued today by the Fondation Custodia, Les Marques de collections de dessins et d’estampes <http://www.marquesdecollections.fr/detail.cfm/marque/12536>. If good enough for these institutions, why would Wikipedia have problems with it? Evidently, the thesis is regarded as important for understanding and consulting the publication. The thesis’ circulation in recent scholarship is more difficult to trace – two important recent examples in English: Sarah Betzer, “Ingres Shadows,” Art Bulletin, 95 (2013): 78-101 (“instrumental to my discussion”); and Susanne Anderson-Riedel, “A French Raphael ...” Art in print, 6 (May-June 2016), pp. 17-30. Also, it is referenced, of course, in McKee’s additional publications on the subject in the Revue de l’art (no. 98) (the officially sponsored successor to the Gazette de Beaux-Arts for authoritative discussion of French Art History) and the Revue du Louvre (déc. 1995) (the official scholarly outlet of the National Museums of France). George-Amherst (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@George-Amherst: If you have suggestions to improve an article, you can start a discussion on that article's talk page. Try not to post a wall of text, or it will likely not get read. Start with one small suggestion and then build on it when you get consensus for your change. RudolfRed (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
RudolfRed, this was a reply to the review of Draft:Le Musée royal. George-Amherst, there's no point in replying to the review here at the Teahouse. Reply on the talk page of the draft, and WP:ping the editor who declined the draft (Theroadislong). But RudolfRed's remark about a wall of text applies - at least break it into paragraphs. Try to remember that your purpose is not to win an argument, but to achieve consensus with other editors. --ColinFine (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I find it hard to understand what Draft:Le Musée royal is about. A periodical? Three editions of a book? "large format" – how large? "504 .. engravings" – the same 504 in each issue/edition/release? Or 504 different ones? Or 504 in total? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maproom (talkcontribs) 2022-01-26T18:18:00 (UTC)
From refs #1 and #2, appears to be multiple volumes of a series that went through two name changes over 1803-1818. David notMD (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Willett page, major edit[edit]

I have nearly completed a major edit for the existing page on Thomas Willett in my "sandbox": User:Rdschillawski/sandbox, and would like some input on where to go from here. I am reluctant to just overwrite the existing page without some feedback (I assume that's appropriate). Look forward to hearing from someone with more Wikipedia experience than I have at this point.

Thanks, Rdschillawski (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Rdschillawski (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Rdschillawski: Welcome to the Teahouse! Next time, I suggest you be bold and make your improvements directly in the article. But now, you could update your post on Talk:Thomas Willett with a link to User:Rdschillawski/sandbox. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, Rdschillawski! At a glance, this seems like a genuine improvement in quite a few respects. I think a few things need to be ironed out, namely uncited excerpts, what appears to be WP:SYNTH in quite a few places (e.g., "almost certainly in England"), and MOS:SELFREF (e.g., "as will become evident"), but I think this is definitely on track to being a great expansion of the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Success think: The update so far looks pretty good to me. I did see one little thing though all the references are before the period instead of after, but that is just me being picky. Also in the section Ancestry and Transport instead of just copying and pasting from the dictionary of national biography try paraphrasing it and summarizing it just to make sure that there are no copyvios. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

These articles are according WP policies ?[edit]

Rashmi Thackeray and a related women page to her, are these to sub are notable to have a WP page about them. These pages also not looks like a WP articles normally looks, the articles are looking like their personal website, where there political party supporters. Success think (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Success think, could you articulate your concerns about the article more clearly? It looks like the sources establish notability to me. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Success think: Is Rashmi Thackeray's notability derived from being a spouse, or from being an editor? What has she done in her career? All good things you can bring up at the article's talk page, Talk:Rashmi Thackeray. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
This little weirdness was in the intro: "currently serving as the spouse of the Chief minister of Maharashtra to Uddhav Thackeray. " Checking around, I think that the author was actually trying to say that "she is the spouse of the Chief minister of Maharashtra, Uddhav Thackeray" and have so edited the lead. The rest of the article should be looked over to see if this same lack of English proficiency is evident in the rest of it. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Did I make a mistake here? (Speedy deletion, user page)[edit]

The page: User:Josijojow

I was watching recent changes and saw this page be created. I somehow didn't see that it's a user page, and thought that user Josijojow created an article titled "Josijojow" that is exclusively promotional and I applied the template. After realizing what I did, I reverted myself, but now I am not sure if such a page should actually still be deleted, and if this method of deletion still applies to user pages? Should I not have reverted myself perhaps? It looks like the new user wanted to create a promotional page for themselves, regardless of whether it's an article or a user page. Thanks for advice. twsabin 18:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Twsabin: Hello Twsabin! There's also speedy deletion criteria U5 (for WP:NOTWEBHOST violations) and G11 (promotional userpage under a promotional username). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Twsabin Guessing it's an attempt to create an article, it seems to fit WP:G11. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Twsabin: Went ahead and added tags for U5 and G11, and it's since been deleted by Nick Moyes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 19:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. This was an illuminating experience to me. twsabin 23:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Stand alone lists[edit]

How short can a list be and still qualify for a stand alone article? TipsyElephant (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, some list can be big and go into a lot of detail (a description list) like List of The Mandalorian characters while others can be short (ordered and unordered list) like List of Magic Kingdom attractions. In other words there is nothing really saying how big or short a list must be. For more information about List I would suggest reading WP:Stand-alone lists as well as the list criteria. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@TipsyElephant I agree with @Kaleeb18. If it seems that a small number of items would be better placed within a main article (facetiously: List of cardinal points on a compass) then a list article really is not needed. Where a List article would be a useful starting point to jumping off from, then it can be justified. As always, context is probably important to be able to give a helpful answer. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Help for submission[edit]

Help for submission Hello, I started working on my first submission a while and kept improving it while learning (doing my best to). I did my best to apply the suggestions I got, which sometimes were difficult for me to understand. Can anyone help me understand where am I at now? I think you can track my submission about the musician Luca Formentini. Many thanks for your help. Silvia Dalle Montagne (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Silvia Dalle Montagne: Welcome to the Teahouse! Looking at Draft:Luca Formentini, you have no lead section to explain how he meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians. Sentences such as "With roots in improvisation, he takes an intuitive, effects-laden unguitar approach to his instrument" is not written in an encyclopedic tone. Several sections have no references. Albums should be italicized, while songs/compositions should be in "quotation marks". You should not have external links in the body of the draft. (Links in the "References" and "External links" sections are fine.) The correct article layout has "External links" below "References". Still needs lots of work. When you've addresses all the issues, you can click the "Resubmit" button on your draft to have it reviewed again. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

ACORD Edit Request Review[edit]

Hi Teahouse! As suggested by User:Spencer, reaching out here to see if another editor would be willing to look over the most recent edit request on ACORD. One of the company's products recently won an award, and would like to see if it could get added to the page. Thanks! Morrissey35 (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved from Teahouse talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks User:Blaze Wolf! Any other editors available to review this? Much appreciated! Morrissey35 (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Morrissey35: I have not actually checked it out. I simply moved this from the teahouse talk page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Using an old logo in addition to the latest one[edit]

Hi! I was editing the page of a football club. It already has a logo added to its infobox under what I believe is fair use. But the club adopted that logo only in 2016, and I found the logo it used for several years before that. If I wanted to add the old logo to the article (not in infobox), will be I able to do it under fair use? Toofllab (talk) 21:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Toofllab. Item 8 of the non-free content criteria says: Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. If you think your proposal will meet that criteron (and you are prepared to argue the case if another editor disagrees) then go ahead and include it. --ColinFine (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Actually, item 3a may be more relevant: Minimal number of items. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. --ColinFine (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The current logo has only been in place since 2016, while the older logo had been used since at least the 2000's, if not the 1990's (the cub was formed in 1996). Do you think its a valid reason? Toofllab (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Toofllab, I am puzzled that your external link goes to an imageless YouTube video of a Kanye West song recording. How is this relevant?
To answer the logo question, I would say that if each logo contain elements relevant to details of the club's circumstances and/or history and the two are significantly different, then both could be used provided that the article text actually explains these details. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.213.224.157 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Articles From Africa Subject to More rigorous and unnecessarily harsh standards[edit]

I am a new Wikipedia member and my experience trying to make edits on Wikipedia has been very disappointing. My edits are being flagged for frivolous infractions. I have read articles published in America for example, they don't have any references nor do they cite any source yet they are allowed to stay on live space for years despite that. My question is, do they have a lower standard for articles published in the West and high standards for Africa? .Could that be the reason why there are so few Wikipedia editors in Africa? Kiambu1 (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kiambu1: Welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry that you're having a rough time starting out. The standards apply to all articles, but due to being run by volunteers and standards changing over the years, you'll find articles of various quality throughout Wikipedia - see also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are many reasons why there are more Wikipedia editors in some locations than others, but different standards isn't one of them. Per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I hope you're discussing your suggestions for improvement on the article talk pages to drive consensus. Hope this helps, and happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kiambu1: As this is a volunteer project, where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to get by us. We can only address what we know about. If you would like to help us out, you are welcome to detect and identify unsourced or otherwise inappropriate articles for possible action. 331dot (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kiambu1 Welcome to the Teahouse. It is true that there are many articles that have been here for many years that are still poorly-cited, but also that over the last decade, or thereabouts, there has been increasing emphasis on new articles needing to be properly cited, and older ones being challenged on notability grounds. With 6.4+million articles here, there are unfortunately a lot of them still to unearth.
That said, I do often feel that in Europe and N. America there is often better access to more potential sources, and perhaps less of an understanding [by editors there] of what constitutes reliable and unreliable sources in other countries. If I'm honest, I suspect there may be some degree of unconscious bias against poorly sourced articles outside of the English-=speaking world, and perhaps greater specificity in our notability criteria, such as WP:NPOLITICIAN or WP:NSPORTS which give more clarity to those originating topics in America or Europe. But we have other under-represented groups amongst our editor base - especially women, and that gender bias is also reflected in the paucity of articles about women, too. So I think there is more to it than you suggest, and all I can do is offer our support to help and guide you as you learn - especially about our Notability Criteria. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kiambu1: I can sympathize with you as I remember most of my edits getting flagged when I first started. One thing I did that helped me is unsterstanding Wikipedia’s policies. I highly suggest that you read the general notability guideline. Also I agree with the other editors in that there are so many articles on here it can be hard for us to get rid of the ones that are not notable. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 22:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh. What a shame. This editor has just been investigated and indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts to create specific articles, thus not helping their cause one little bit. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Karma. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiambu1 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
wow. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 00:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Pronouns Discussions[edit]

In an article where someone’s pronouns are up to debate, can we include that clarification in the article so readers will not be confused or offended? Flamingoflyer (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Flamingoflyer Welcome to the Teahouse. No. or, at least, my understanding is that you can only include discussion of any debate of a deceased person's personal pronoun preferences if they have been debated and discussed in Reliable Sources, or you can cite their own work where they have stated that. You already know there has been a discussion at Talk:Claude Cahun on this issue, but your idea you added of putting a nice flag on the article doesn't seem appropriate at all. It's a case of following what the sources have said, not trying to meet current user's needs, wishes or sensitivities. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleting pages under my user page[edit]

I recently played “The Wikipedia Adventure,” and it has created four pages:

I would like to delete these, but I cannot find a way to do so—I tried to propose them for deletion, but it said that it only works for articles. How can these be deleted?

Thank you! Leejordan9 talk
sandbox
00:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Try {{db-g7}} or {{db-u1}}. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 00:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Leejordan9 Welcome to the Teahouse. I have deleted all the pages for you that you've listed above. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much! That's really helpful! Leejordan9 talk
sandbox
00:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Inquiries about reference writing and writing.[edit]

Draft:Hanwha Defense http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Draft:Hanwha_Defense 

This draft has no references. Notability cannot be established without references. Do not resubmit this draft without references. You can ask for advice about references at the Teahouse. This draft is written from the viewpoint of the company, focusing on what the company says about itself. Corporate notability is based on what independent reliable sources have written about the subject. Not every business corporation is notable, and this draft does not establish corporate notability. You may ask for advice about corporate notability at the Teahouse. This draft has been Rejected by a reviewer in the Articles for Creation review process. DO NOT resubmit this draft or attempt to resubmit this draft or prepare or submit a draft that is substantially the same as this draft without discussing the reasons for the rejection. You may request a discussion with the rejecting reviewer, or you may request a discussion with the community at the Teahouse. A discussion will not necessarily agree to a resubmission. It should be noted that the reviewer has not decided that the topic is not notable. An article on the topic may be accepted in the future. However, there is no reason to think that this draft will become an article, and there is evidence that this draft will never become an article. If there is to be an article on this topic, this draft must first be blown up and started over. If this draft is resubmitted without discussion and without starting it over, or if an attempt is made to resubmit this draft or an equivalent draft, without addressing the reasons for the Rejection by starting over, a partial block or a topic-ban may be requested against the submitting editor. You may ask for advice about Rejection at the Teahouse.

Please teach me the way. Duck3820 (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

What you copy/pasted above represents the comments the reviewer who Rejected the draft made to explain why the draft was Rejected, which is more severe than Declined. Foremost, you provided no references. DO NOT resubmit the draft as it is now. Delete all content, i.e., 'blown up'. If you insist on trying again, find published content about the company written by people who have no connection to the company. Those are the essential references. All content you write must be from information in those sources. If no such sources exist, give up. If you create a new draft, post a note on the Talk page of the editor who rejected it, asking if the new version has potential to become an article. David notMD (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Duck3820 See WP:REFBEGIN to learn how to add references, and WP:INTRODUCTION to learn other important editing basics. Are you being paid to write this promotional draft? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Help With Article Neutrality[edit]

Hi all! Just writing because I need some help from someone with more experience editing for neutrality on this page: Calvin Ball


I tried to resolve some of the issues, but as other editors noted there seem to be quite a few problems with this page. Urge any editors with more experience to take a look or pass on any tips :) Ml0695a (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ml0695a! I see you added a controversies section here. I would discourage that, per WP:CRITSECTION; just integrate it into the text elsewhere instead.
Another issue is sourcing. Your first source to The Baltimore Sun looks alright to me, but the other two have issues. HoCo Watchdog does not appear to be a reliable source, because its about page doesn't detail any sort of editorial process. The second Baltimore Sun article is an opinion piece, which does not work for a citation per WP:RSOPINION. Please find better sources for both of these. If no better sources exist, then the information is not due for the article. Speaking more broadly, we shouldn't give much focus to individual incidents unless they had a lasting impact on the person's career, since as an encyclopedia, we want to take a long-term view, rather than the more newsy focus of a newspaper. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Ml0695a that this article is overly filled with modest accomplishment by Ball, many representing an elected official's routine work, many not referenced. I cut 20%, but still needs an axe. Even then, there is the question of whether an article of a person at the county level is warranted. David notMD (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View vs. A Unique Native Perspective[edit]

Hello! I have had this question bouncing around my head for a while, troubling me with analysis paralysis. Today a professor pulled me out of it by suggesting I just ask you all.

There is a page for a Guarani chieftain named Lambaré who, in the 16th century, fought against the Spanish conquest of Paraguay. The page exists only in Guarani. I came upon it because I am from Paraguay, and interested in Native histories. I have many times noted that the language that an article is in determines the information presented therein, and upon realizing that there was a Guarani Wikipedia I wanted to seek articles in that language out—specifically those that would be inaccessible from Spanish/French/English Wikipedias. I found a few, and started a project with someone else to translate them. However, with COVID and Life Circumstances, things fell through. Nonetheless, we did manage to translate one article, which I wanted to put on the English site and make accessible to others.

However, and here comes the problem, the article is not written in a "neutral point of view," as per this page. The point will be easier to illustrate with an excerpt; these are the first lines:

  • Guarani: Che niko aikuaase ko’ág̃aite peve, mba’érepa ko’ã cacique ha ambue omanóva’ekue ñane retã rayhupápe ndojehecharamói avei chupekuéra pe 1º jasyapýpe, Mariscal-kuéra apytépe, pysyrõhára apytépe, mba’érepa herakuéra ndojehechái oñeñe’ẽvo Paraguái rembiasáre, umi ohaíva’ekue piko añetehápe Paraguay ra’ytee téiko pytagua? Ápe peteĩ mandu’aimi hesegua ajuhúva.
  • English: I want to know this instant: why do we not also see these chiefs, and others who died for their love of our homeland, among the marshals and defenders on the First of March? Why do we not see their names mentioned in the history of Paraguay? Were those that wrote it so little Paraguayan that they were foreigners?


I think it's pretty clear that this is not neutral, and within Wikipedia's styleguide. However, I must stress that this is unique. This, and probably other articles on Guarani Wikipedia and other lesser-known languages, have such biases. But their value is in the perspective they provide, the autochtonous record of events we usually only have access to from the colonizer's perspective.

I've been hesitant to bring this issue up for so long because my deepest fear is that the Guarani page, which is beautiful and has worth in its own rights, will be taken down—be made inaccessible to the public—and something great will be lost. I was concerned that translating it into English would highlight this deficiency and lead it to the deleted, but that was leading me to not do anything with the translation. Instead of doing that, and not having room to explain anything, I think it is/was best that I post here and lay out my thoughts.

What should I do with my English translation is one question. Another is: what should be done about the Guarani article? I hope that the answer is nothing for the latter... My question really is about whether or not I can post an article from a 1st person singular/2nd person plural perspective on English Wikipedia. However, the underlying question is whether such articles are even allowed on Wikipedia period, regardless of language.

This is my first post here, so my apologies if this is not the proper place to post this or to go about it. Please help me if you can! Is there some authority who can make an ad hoc ruling, or is this adressed in a FAQ, or in a guideline/styleguide?

Thank you
 I. Riva (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I. Riva. Let me begin by saying that I know nothing about the Guarani Wikipedia but do know a little about how Wikipedia versions in various languages are governed. In brief, each language version is autonomous, as long as they are aligned with the general principles of the Wikimedia movement. Each project establishes its own notability standards and other standards for articles. Guarani is a language with a few million native speakers but only a few thousand Wikipedia articles. You should not assume that a Guarani Wikipedia article is also notable on the English Wikipedia, because of the variations in notability standards. And, if translated into English, the new English language article is expected to comply with the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia. So, to create a successful "translation ", or more correctly an English language article based in part on the Guarani original, then you must substantially rewrite the article to bring it into compliance with English language Wikipedia standards. Cullen328 (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I. Riva, the bias in what's presented caused by the language (and ethnicity) of the author obviously exists, and it can be difficult to decide what reference-point is neutral. What I consider neutral might be very different to what a Paraguayan would consider neutral, because I'm standing in a different place, looking with different eyes. The thing about Wikipedia is that we can address such differences, and can talk about it, but we must do so with someone else's voice, not our own. You can use the points of view expressed in the Guarani page, but must find some reliable secondary source where those points of view have been spoken (in any language); I hope that their author, or others with the same viewpoint, will have written those thoughts elsewhere than Wikipedia pages. If someone stood up and complained that the history has been written by the colonists, you can and should include that in your article, properly referenced. We just have to balance all mainstream points of view. So Cullen328 is right: it might take a lot of work to re-write the Guarani article to meet English WP standards, but it's about finding referencing, and balancing all viewpoints, not about necessarily the Guarani article being "wrong". But I think you know that. We cannot right wrongs, but we can report others who've righted wrongs in good secondary sources. Yes, the Guarani viewpoint is unique rather than neutral, but unique viewpoints can (should!) still be in English WP provided they're presented as part of the whole story (and surely the native perspective is a big part of the story), and provided they're properly supported by referencing. Elemimele (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@I. Riva, thanks for your note here! To answer your direct question, first, yes, we absolutely want to have an article on Lambaré in English. Latin American topics are an area where we're significantly lacking coverage due to Wikipedia's systemic bias, and remedying that is extremely valuable. However, as others have discussed above, neutrality is a core pillar of English Wikipedia, so just a direct translation of the Guarani page wouldn't be acceptable here (although it could certainly be a good starting point).
Another important thing is sourcing. It looks like there's one or two sources at the bottom of the bottom of the Guarani page—it'd be helpful if you could translate those for us, but we'll probably need more. I did a search to see what I could find in English, and I came up with a few finds:[1][2] There seem to be some others on Google Books, and you're also welcome to use non-English sources. I'd suggest pasting your translation at Draft:Lambaré (chieftain) and working on it there, adding high-quality sources to support the material, and then submitting it when it's ready. I'm happy to help; I've watchlisted that page and you can post on my talk page anytime to summon me.
Lastly, zooming out a bit, here's another way to frame neutrality. While personal, non-neutral texts can be valuable cultural documents, ultimately they're not encyclopedic, so they don't fit with our purpose here in the same way as neutral accounts do. One of the beautiful things about English Wikipedia is that, because we have contributors from all over the world, it's easier to counter cultural biases from any one place. For instance, when we were looking to close a discussion on whether Fox News can be used as a reliable source, we sought out non-American editors to assess the consensus. Wikipedias in languages predominantly spoken in a single country often have a harder time doing this. That phenomenon has been covered in this article on Japanese Wikipedia and this one on Croatian Wikipedia. Granted, the global prevalence of English certainly has its own colonial history, but that's getting into a separate discussion. Anyways, I hope you'll move forward with writing the article on Lambaré, and please let us know if there's anything we can do to help with that. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kenneth, Huner, Michael (December 2011). Sacred cause, divine republic: a history of nationhood, religion, and war in nineteenth-century Paraguay, 1850-1870 (Thesis). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. pp. 233–236. doi:10.17615/m5k7-kf91.
  2. ^ Austin, Shawn Michael (2020). Colonial kinship: Guaraní, Spaniards, and Africans in Paraguay. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. pp. 27–28. ISBN 9780826361974.

Help please[edit]

Can anyone help me here: Draft:Sanjib Baruah Arunudoy (talk) 04:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arunudoy, we cannot help you jump the queue of submitted drafts. Please be patient and it will be reviewed in due time. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Arunudoy. The draft was declined yesterday (before you posted here) by Scope creep, who left a comment explaining the decline. You are of course entitled to ask any editors for their opinion on notability, but to do so without mentioning that a reviewer has already told you the references are inadequate looks like gaming the system. Please engage with Scope creep rather than ignoring them and appealing to somebody else.

How to create a Public, Professional profile in Wikipedia[edit]

 68.186.52.179 (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello. Please read Wikipedia:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Wikipedia does not have profiles. Not a single one. Instead, it consists of neutrally written, well referenced encyclopedia articles. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY for an explanation of why you effort is almost certainly a bad idea. Your first article offers some good advice. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library[edit]

I have received a message saying that "Congratulations! You are now eligible for The Wikipedia Library." in my notices, what is this "Wikipedia Library" and this message seems suspicious for some reason, I haven't clicked on anything (like the notice/message has said) so can anyone tell me more about whatever this is, and should I trust it?

Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 05:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello RandomEditorAAA. The Wikipedia Library is a research group for experienced editors. See WP:WIKILIB and this for more information. Thank You! Kpddg (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@RandomEditorAAA, I see how it might have the "too good to be true" ring to it, but lucky for us, it's very real and an incredibly useful resource. I encourage you to sign up! (Also, courtesy ping @Samwalton9 (WMF), just for your consideration when deciding on text to use in the notification message.) {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library "totally not sus, you can deffo trust us"? Nosebagbear (talk)
Be Happy! I am desperately looking forward to this, because it's extremely hard to use newspaper sources behind pay-walls, and it's very frustrating for those of us who are serious-but-new editors that we don't have eligibility to get to this enormous amount of material that ought to be used in citations, without paying through the nose to do so, when we're not paid to do what we do. I don't mind working on Wikipedia for free (it's worth it) but I can't afford to spend cash on it! Elemimele (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Elemimele Not all resources are immediately accessible there. I am still waiting for my request for access to Cambridge University Press to be fulfilled. I’m desperate to read one paper that I need access to for my new article about the 19th century high-altitude scientist, Joseph Vallot. I believe there are limited tickets available for Wikipedia, so it’s simply a case of waiting my turn. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Can you not make a request at WP:REX for the paper? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I possibly could, but I've got a long way with my article already, so there's no rush, even though I'm keen to see it. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. Just wanted to make sure you knew that was an option. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I've got independent access to the Cambridge Core collection which includes CUP, so I should be able to reach the article you want if you give some details here or (better) on my Talk Page. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your response, I will try to sign up today! Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Side question, I am reading the terms and conditions and I have 2 questions.
  1. Regarding personal data, it says "we will retain the application data we collect from you for three years after your most recent login" (in the Data Retention and Handling section) and that I will be able to see it through my profile, this information will only be kept between Wikimedia and me right? Or will other people see it?
  2. Secondly, it says in the Applying via Your Wikipedia Library Card Account section, that "approved Wikipedia Library Coordinators" will be able to see my information, but later on they are described as "approved volunteer Coordinators", what is this approval process and how am I ensured that someone didn't apply for a coordinator position just to steal personal information, or use it in someway for a personal advantage?

Sorry for asking another question, Thanks - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@RandomEditorAAA, I pinged Sam Walton, who manages the Wikipedia Libary, above; when he sees this, he may be able to speak to those questions. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for helping! - RandomEditorAAA (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Oddly, I received the same message saying I was "now eligible" for the WL recently. Yet I've had an account there for some time! For anyone who is interested, the eligibility criteria are that your account has 500+ edits; 6+ months editing; 10+ edits in the last month and No active blocks. So most if not all serious contributors here will be eligible and I encourage you to sign up at this link. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Michael D. Turnbull: I did as well after reverting vandalism, although I'm fairly sure I'm already signed up for it. Wonder if they just recently enabled that notification or if there was a bug that caused it to get sent out again to all eligible users. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Amagarh Fort[edit]

help me. -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Karsan Chanda You have written (and had Declined at AfC) an eleven-word draft (Draft:Amagarh Fort) with nine references. It is on you to add content to the draft. Teahouse hosts are charged with answering questions about how to edit and create articles, not be co-authors David notMD (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karsan Chanda What interesting facts about Amagarh Fort do those sources tell you? Can you share them with us? All you've done so far is tell us its name and where it is, but nothing about its history, who constructed it and why, who regards it as their property, if anyone has fought over it, whether it is a ruin or a functional structure, open to the public, or a religious monument, or a police station. Imagine you're a school child who was tasked with finding stuff out about it and asked to write a brief essay about it - would your draft be enough? I think not.
Your job (assuming you want to create this article) is to extract relevant factual information from your sources. Please don't copy-paste them directly, but summarise and rewrite them in your own words and support every statement with an 'inline citation'. There's help at WP:REFBEGIN on how to do that. The end product is a short, encyclopaedic article that is written in a neutral tone of voice which others will find relevant and non-promotional, and where they can go back to your sources and verify what the article says is true. Don't rely on blogs or private websites - only work from Reliable Sources. More advice available Here. Good luck. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Help with draft[edit]

Please help me for Draft:Nitin_Pujari, What's wrong in this article? Ntndude (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ntndude, the draft shows that he's a priest in a temple. Is there any reason to think that he's notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article? Maproom (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Maproom,Nitin Pujari is a spiritual leader as well as a temple priest and is a participant in many social work, people like him very much and he has contributed a lot in setting up this religious institution.

if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntndude (talkcontribs)

Creating Wikipedia Page about someone significant[edit]

Hi there, Our company would like to create a Wikipedia page about our current CEO who is a reasonably well-known figure in the entertainment industry within South Africa. He is an actor, film and theatre director and producer who has worked on numerous local and international projects over the last 10 years and is also the Founder and CEO of an International Performing Arts Academy in South Africa - which is a top performing arts school within South Africa (one of the 4 best in the country) and he is still very young - regardless of these amazing accomplishments.

We'd like to get him listed on Wikipedia as we feel that he has a great reputation and creditable career to be listed - plus this could benefit him, as well as our company, tremendously if approved and granted.

We don't know how this works, how to create a page, or request for it to be created. Assistance but mostly advice will be highly appreciated.

Regards 31.124.109.203 (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello there and welcome to the Teahouse, it looks like you have a conflict of interest with the article you are thinking about making. It is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia to create an article that one might have a conflict of interest with, because it might lead the article away from having a neutral point of view. If you are, however, to make this article you must first see that is passes the general notability guideline and if it does not sadly an article should not be written about your boss. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
See also WP:PAID. Since you're employed by his company, it's highly likely you'll have to make a declaration that you are doing paid editing. Under some circumstances it's just about possible to argue that you're paid to do something completely different, that your CEO is unaware that you're writing an article about him, would not expect you to, that the company's publicity is none of your business, and that your actions won't influence your status in the company or carry any possibility of reward or censure, but this is very rare indeed. Even if you're an intern, and not actually paid, it counts. If you have any role in promoting the company, it absolutely definitely counts. So it's much the best to declare this up front properly, rather than get caught doing "unpaid editing" later, which will almost certainly result in all your work being deleted. Elemimele (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Advice here, then, is to create an account for yourself (all accounts represent individuals), state on your User page that you are an employee of ____ who is drafting an article about ____, and then use WP:YFA to create a referenced draft. Review guidelines for articles about corporations at WP:NCORP. When you are ready, the draft gets submitted to a formal review process. All facts must be supported by independent references. Understand that Wikipedia has articles, not pages, and that it you are successful in creating an article, there is no ownership - anyone can edit it as long as they include valid references. David notMD (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I'll put it a little more strongly. If at some time Wikiedia has an article about your CEO (whether you write it or not), the article will not belong to him or to you, neither you nor he will have control over its contents (though you will be welcome suggest edits to it), it could end up containing material he does not like (as long as this is based on reliable published sources), and indeed, close to 100% of the article should be based on reliable published sources wholly unconnected with your CEO, not on what he says or wants to say. See WP:OWN and WP:PROUD. --ColinFine (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"plus this could benefit him, as well as our company, tremendously if approved and granted." is exactly what Wikipedia is not. David notMD (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How to add a usage to an existing disambiguation page, without creating a new article?[edit]

I am trying to understand how WP:REDDEAL and MOS:DABRED interact (and am sufficiently confused that I just spent an hour two? + hours composing the following, on an iPad, in raw wikitext, because I clearly hate sleep 😉).

Background example:

  1. There is an existing disambiguation page for a term.
  2. A user lands upon this disambiguation page during a search, or by linking to the term in another article (not describing the term, just referencing it) and finding that the wikilink did not lead to what they intended.

    e.g.

    “A live broadcast of the Queen’s 75th birthday celebration was available to all citizens to view on their Skylink receivers.”

  3. No existing entry on that disambiguation page matches the topic the user was trying to find (or the topic implied by the context of the wikilink that led them there.


Possible scenarios:

  1. An article exists already for the desired topic
    1. Add a wikilink pointing to the topic’s article (and a short description) to the disambiguation page

      * Skylink (TV platform), the Czech–Slovak satellite platform

  2. An article for the desired topic does not exist yet, but the topic is described within another article page
    1. Add the topic name, without a red wikilink, to the disambiguation page, and wikilink to the other article in the short description:

      * Skylink (TV platform), the Czech–Slovak satellite platform operated by M7 Group

  3. An article does not exist yet, it plausibly could (within notability standards), the user does not have the knowledge to create a standalone article (which could be one reason why they were searching for it in the first place), and the topic isn’t described within the body of any known article:
    1. Add a wikilink, even though it will be red, to aid visibility and to encourage article creation by others in the future:

      * Skylink (TV platform), the Czech–Slovak satellite platform

    2. Do not do #1, but if that red wikilink is already there, leave it alone for the reasons listed in #1


Questions:

  1. Does anything above seem incorrect?
  2. In the case of scenario C, if C.1. is not correct, what should be done?
    1. Perhaps my eyes are just glazed over by now, but it seems that the combination of WP:REDDEAL and MOS:DABRED imply that C.1. is both okay and not okay.
      1. From a data consistency perspective, not okay makes sense (sort of; more so if WP were a print encyclopedia).
      2. From user and reader friendliness perspective, okay seems to make more sense.
    2. i.e. If the Skylink (TV platform) article didn’t already exist (but it could, since it does right now) could someone add that term to the disambiguation page without creating an article or researching citations?
  3. If the answer to the previous question is “nothing”/“no”, how can this user (who may not even have a Wikipedia account, or may have knowledge that a topic appears to be missing but only has, say, 15 minutes to volunteer) share their knowledge to improve that page?
    1. (Perhaps they could notate the disambiguation page’s ‘talk’ page, but that doesn’t seem very visible.)
  4. Is there a scenario where a topic might not be notable enough for its own article (or even as part of another article), yet still be mentioned on an existing disambiguation page?


Thanks for reading - any thoughts are appreciated!
 Jim Grisham (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Jim Grisham, the purpose of a disambiguation page is to disambiguate among Wikipedia articles, not among subjects. So I disagree with C. I would not add a redlink to a dab page. When I notice such a link, I check if there's a page it could reasonably link to: then either link it to such a page, or delete it. If you believe that a subject is notable, but you don't feel up to creating an article yourself, you could mention it in the dab page's talk page, listing enough sources to establish notability. Maproom (talk) 12:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello @Jim Grisham:, I agree with C as well, but would also suggest that you read disambiguation for any questions you might have for a disambiguation page. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved
That’s partially why I’m confused. Did I misread the references above (disambiguation style manual and redlink guidance)?
  • C.1. and C.2. came from there.

I think they are individually correct per those references; but, logically they both can’t always be.
  • My main question is: did I just interpret those incorrectly, or is there a conflict here?
- - - -
From a user perspective, they search for something, and end up on a disambiguation page.
  • They see a list of things, and something significant with the same name isn’t listed.
  • I get that wasn’t the original intended purpose, but what else have we got? (and this case doesn’t involve creating a new disambiguation page, but simply adding an item to such a page that already exists, and as noted at WP:PRIMARYRED, but then later limited by MOS:DABMENTION

If the missing ‘thing’, (and I’m using ‘thing’ instead of ‘article’ here, because at this point they don’t know if an article exists or not), is related to the others in other ways than just nomenclature, then it can be listed in a ’set index article’ (tangentially the subject of the section at the top of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) right now) with a red link - there appears to be no conflict in guidance there.
- - - -
More generalized scenario:

So, you have two people. Separated by time and space.

A. Person one knows a thing exists, and learns that Wikipedia doesn’t, but she doesn’t know anything encyclopedic about it.
  • Perhaps she has no time / resources to learn more, but willing to share that small thing, the knowledge of the thing’s existence. The speck of dust at the center of a majestic snowflake waiting to be born.

B. Person two knows all about a thing; they might assume nearly everyone else does as well.
  • If person one left a breadcrumb in the past that indicated Wikipedia doesn’t actually know about this thing, perhaps person two discovers this accidentally.
    • Person two could then write a detailed, well-referenced, high quality article about the thing.
    • Without action by person one, person two may never have known of the need.

That type of scenario would require C.1. to take priority over C.2., right?

What is the likelihood that someone, who is not a Wikipedia editor, just happens to stumble upon a Disambiguation:Talk page. (Totally serious question - seems wild to me, but that’s why I’m reaching out for advice.)

If the consensus is instead that C.2. takes priority over C.1., it seems the lowest-friction path for person one would be to instead:
1. add a reference for the ‘thing’ in another article (e.g. M7 Group in B.1.) and then
2. Add to the disambiguation page a mention of the ‘thing’ (bold; not wikilinked) followed by a short description and a blue link to that other article.
As an added benefit, this would bring greater exposure for the need for additional content, as anyone reading that other article would now know that this ‘thing’ existed. Eh?
- - - -
  • Disambiguation . . . . . . . . . . : 24 pages
  • Manual of Style: Disambiguation . : 23 pages
  • WikiProject Disambiguation . . . . : 29 pages
  • Red Link . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 6 pages
  • --
  • 82 pages
  • vs. the page I just found, 6 hours later
  • Disambiguation dos and don’ts . . : 2 pages

One of the stated goals of the Foundation is for everyone to “freely share in the sum of all human knowledge”… perhaps for now this has to go to another project, such as WikiData?

Apologies if I got a bit Ranty McRantface there -

Thank you for your replies - your time and service are appreciated! Jim Grisham (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Complaining about a vandalizing Wikipedia editor[edit]

Hello Teahouse! I'm complaining about a malicious vandal who vagabonds around as a Wikipedia editor under the user name ElderZamzam, and his main cust is the following: He changes in the Wiki articles of all Iranians or persons of Iranian origin the name of their country of birth (Iran) from "Iran" to "Imperial state of Iran". But there is no such state, i.e. Imperial State of Iran, on Earth. Whoever dares to undo the wrong and illegitimate intervention of the vandal, his article will be blocked. These are intolerable conditions and unworthy of Wikipedia. What to do? Hil-ciccio (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Hil-ciccio (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hil-ciccio: Hello Hil! I took a look at his contributions and he does not appear to be doing what you described. Did you perhaps confuse him with another user? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it appears they are doing a little of that (They even know they're being a vandal by saying WP:SNEAKY in their edit summary]], however that doesn't appear to be all of their edits. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
"Imperial State of Iran" was the name of the country from 1935 to 1979, see http://www.gov.uk/government/publications/country-names/country-name-changes-in-hmg-use-1919-to-2020. Please don't use the term vandalism to refer to good-faith edits. See WP:vandalism. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Hil-ciccio (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC) @Balze Wolf, have a quick look, for example, at the article Mahmoud Khayami. Hil-ciccio (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Hil-ciccio: Wikipedia uses the titles which were relevant at the appropriate time, see the last paragraph (about anachronisms) in Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Geographical items. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about my User page[edit]

Hi, I'm new and I don't understand if my User page exists or not, and if it exists in English, does it also automatically exist in Italian (it doesn't seem so)?

Thanks to anyone who will help me to better understand how the registration works :)

Kind regards, Suzanna MSuzanna (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@MSuzanna: Hello welcome to the Teahouse, the answer to you question is no. If you have a user page on the English Wiki you will not also have one in the Italian or any other Wiki. Hope this helps! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSuzanna: If you create a user page at meta:Special:MyPage, it will be used in any language Wikipedia where you don't have a specific user page, see meta:Global user pages. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@MSuzanna: Back in December you changed your user page so that it redirects to your User talk page. If you wish to edit your user page, go to your user page User:MSuzanna then click near the top where it says "Redirected from User:MSuzanna".--Shantavira|feed me 13:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Time (Five album) Draft[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Time (Five album)

I'd found someone created and submitted this page, but it got rejected twice so I've added more to it and another source or two. What exactly is wrong with it to begin with? Could someone look at this and perhaps submit it if it's ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:9CBA:EE97:36E9:B748 (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason it got declined is because the articles sources were not reliable therefore not passing the nobility guideline for music. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Well how about now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:9CBA:EE97:36E9:B748 (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The groups previous albums are all subjects of articles, which is a good sign. Given that Time was just released in January 2022, perhaps wait a bit before resubmitting. What music critics write about it could become references. By the way, it was Declined, not Rejected, which is more severe. David notMD (talk) 16:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Also according to WP:RSP The Sun UK is a depreciated sources, the apple inc reference is not reliable, and I am unsure about the reliablity of Retro Pop Magazine. This could be a case of WP:TOOSOON as like David notMD said it was just released in January. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

How About now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:331F:C301:7966:9556:C7BE:69AD (talk) 13:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

translating pages about czech artists[edit]

Hello I would like to create an english version of this page http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristina_Weiserov%C3%A1 , what should I do. I would like to translate multiple czech artist pages into english in near future. AnnaMarieDvorakova (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello AnnaMarieDvorakova, see Wikipedia:Translation#Translation from a foreign language to English. --The Tips of Apmh 15:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@AnnaMarieDvorakova I think you will not be able simply to translate that page and assume it will be acceptable here. I don't speak Czech, but all I can see is a huge uncited biography and two references linking to YouTube. Whilst she may well meet our Notability Requirements, you will need to ensure that every statement of fact is supported by an inline citation. See WP:REFBEGIN or WP:ERB to understand how to do that. I do see there are some external links, and i would suggest these would need to be assess to see if they are Reliable Sources or not. If they are, you should base everything on what those sources say. Do not simply translate from Czech to English and expect it to be accepted here.
I say this not to put you off, but to appraise you of the importance of doing your own research and in finding and using those sources, and nothing else. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Clearing sandbox after publishing article[edit]

When I have published an article I am left with a notice in my sandbox: " This is a redirect from a page move." From what I have read elsewhere I believe that I can just delete this to clear my sandbox to start on my next piece, but for the life of me I can't work out how to. Can you please give me some basic instructions? I know I am missing something! Thanks. Frb12 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Frb12: Hello Frb12! There are 2 ways to do so, one is to add to your URL for your sandbox &redirect=no after the part of the url that says sandbox (So it would turn out as ...User:Frb12/sandbox&redirect=no. An easier way would be to go to your sandbox, let it redirect you, and when it takes you to the new page, there'll be a small bit of text that says "(Redirect from User:Frb12/sandbox)". You just click on your link to the sandbox and it'll take you back to the sandbox without redirecting you. Then you can simply just edit source and blank the page. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf wow, I've always deleted items from my sandbox by clicking on Edit, highlighting everything, and hitting my computer's Delete key. I work on new articles offline, and then move them to Wikipedia:Article wizard/version1/Ready for submission, so it might make a difference if I only use my sandbox to see if I've formatted a citation or an information box properly. Karenthewriter (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this articles sufficient to be in mainspace?[edit]

Is this Draft: Pradeep Narwal sufficient to be accepted as Article? As I can see this draft have 227 views in 17 days but no one accepted yet. Confused! ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse, just because it has 227 views does not mean they are all reviewers looking at the article, but from what I can tell the article looks good as well as the sources (I don’t know about the one in the other language though). ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Kaleeb18 Thank you. The other language which don't know is Hindi language. The Hindi news source is from News18 which mostly considered as reliable. If everything is fine. Hope someone will accept this soon. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 17:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@TheChunky No problem, there is just a big backlog right now as there are currently over 2900 articles also waiting for review. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello TheChunky and welcome to the Teahouse, there is nothing unusual here, articles submitted at AFC can be in waiting for up to 90 days, the reason being, “AFC” isn’t a queue, rather, think of it like a “pool” there isn’t a specific order in which articles are reviewed. Do have a little patience and in due time your article would be reviewed. Sorry for the inconvenience, keep in mind that editors working at AFC as with any other aspects of this project are volunteers who edit as a hobby or a means to contribute to knowledge, so like I said exhibit little patience, if after three months the article is left unreviewed do let us know, and I would personally take care of the reviewing for you. Celestina007 (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Addendum; i saw this comment made by you; “Hope someone will accept this soon” if I may ask, Is there a particular reason you want this reviewed quickly? A valid rationale might make me review if for you within the hour if the reason is a very cogent one. Celestina007 (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Celestina007 Thanks for the elaboration. Regarding my comment, I hope someone will accept it soon. I said this because I saw there were almost 200+ views on this very draft and none of them reviewed it. I don't have any urgency, like I am not forcing someone to accept. But I was just asking whether it could be accepted or not. If not, then what changes do I have to make to it? That is just for gaining experience. As you mentioned, AfC is run entirely by volunteers, so no one can be forced to attend. I enjoy contributing to Wikipedia and the above-mentioned draft, which I created solely to gain experience in biographical wikis, which are of particular interest to me. But besides this, I usually write articles about places mostly.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
Celestina007 as I can see you have lot of experience, I hope you can teach me too where I don't know the things. Hope you will be my mentor. Can you adopt me? ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
TheChunky, not all editors who viewed the draft article might have the technical ability to accept it (or decline). Furthermore, I would suggest experimenting is best done in your sandbox, BLP's or biographies(living or dead) in general are very delicate, to be honest I don’t think experimenting with article creations is a good idea. Unfortunately I am unable to adopt anyone due to the fact that I edit in very tasking aspects of Wikipedia that require pedantic concentration, there are however other editors who are willing to adopt editors, see them here. My talkpage is however always open if you have specific questions to ask me. Celestina007 (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Focusing on # of article views is a waste of time. We generally don't care about that for articles unless there's direct consequences for the article as a result (in the form of an influx of new editors or vandals). I'll remind you that Wikipedia uses NOFOLLOW for all outgoing links. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 20:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Celestina007 and Jéské Couriano for your suggestions. I will practise my new articles in the sandbox. Regarding the view count, I know it is not compulsory that only users having the technical ability to accept articles have seen it. But I wanted to see if anybody had left a message there so that I could learn more. Currently, I am focusing on Indian politics-related articles because the elections in India are going to start next month. And the Wikipedia readers would be researching the parties and candidates' history and background. This Draft:Pradeep Narwal is my first article on political biography and I have created it by considering Wikipedia:NPOL. I was here to get suggestions only. Well, I will ask here again if I need any help with any article. Thanks again for the guidance.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 03:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect creation[edit]

Can someone create a redirect of Guddu Pandit to Bhagwan Sharma? Sources: [1][2] 122.170.166.214 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Teahouse, I suggest you to visit Wikipedia:Redirect. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 18:01, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You can learn there how to redirect. ❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️)
IPs are not able to create article or redirect. 122.170.166.214 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I would do it for you however I don't know if those sources are reliable or not (They aren't listed at WP:RSP which helps me in determining a source's reliability). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list and unless we have some reason to believe they are not reliable it's ok to go through with items like this. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 18:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mcmatter: Alright that's good to know. I usually don't like doing stuff that would require sourcing unless I know for sure the sources are reliable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! 122.170.166.214 (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
User:Mcmatter Can you also create an Indian sword for me and redirect it to Indian martial arts? I want to create an article there just like there is Korean sword and Japanese sword. 122.170.166.214 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
For that I would recommend using the WP:AFC process.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia page declined[edit]

hey! i got told here to see why my article got declined Wintercake93 (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The reason why your draft was declined is given in the pink box on Draft:Poor Mans Poison. You deleted it despite the note saying "Do not remove this line!" but I have reinstated it. The words in blue are wikilinks to specific guidance. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Wintercake93: Please note that the message on your talk page states: "If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk." It then goes on to state "If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse". GoingBatty (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources / Citations ref first hand account and participation[edit]

I was an actual participant in an historical event listed in wikipedia. I want to edit the article but am not sure how to actually provide citiation since the source is myself. However, I do have an email from a USG agency authorizing my specific submission to wikipedia. I am seeking guidance on how best to accomplish the edit. I look forward to your reply. AmIntelAgent32 (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@AmIntelAgent32: You cannot use your personal memories to add information into an article. Any information you add will need to come from published reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:RS RudolfRed (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Is an email from a USG agency authorizing me such an edit not considered a "reliable source" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmIntelAgent32 (talkcontribs) 22:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@AmIntelAgent32: Welcome to the Teahouse! A "USG agency" or any other agency cannot authorize submissions to Wikipedia. However, if you think published independent reliable sources exist (e.g. books, newspapers, magazines) you could post suggestions on the article's talk page to see if others have those sources. GoingBatty (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate the inputs from ALL.
However, I am trying to explain that my former employer with the USG had to "provide me with authorization" before I could publish an edit because I used to hold a security clearance. This is a requirement for all former employees. I have an email which verifies my participation in the event which I am trying to edit in wiki. Does this help explain what I am trying to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmIntelAgent32 (talkcontribs) 22:44, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
It explains what you are wanting to do, and no, you cannot do it. Contributions by individuals based on their experiences or knowledge is considered original research, which is not allowed. Emails are not published, reliable source references. David notMD (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
To explain why this is, AmIntelAgent32, suppose somebody next year reads the article, and goes "That's interesting, I never knew that. But I've learnt to be cautious: let's see how Wikipedia knows", and looks for the source. It's a private email that purports to be from somebody to somebody else: even if the names are right, the reader has no way of knowing whether it's genuine. Further, suppose before that that another editor has come in and changed what you said in the article: anybody can. Perhaps they thought your wording wasn't clear, but inadvertently changed the meaning when they tidied it up; perhaps they were involved, and remember it differently from you; perhaps they saw a video about it on YouTube and that said something different; perhaps they don't like you and want to discredit you; perhaps they have come here to vandalise Wikipedia: we can't tell why they changed it. To our hypothetical reader, the changed version may look just as convincing as your original, but they have no way of determining whether or not it is right. This is why we insist on reliably published sources. --ColinFine (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggested Article: "Lists of Support Groups"[edit]

It's been a decade since I edited Wikipedia. --- I was the progenitor (Simesa) of what eventually turned into "Lists of Tourist Attractions", and a few other articles.

--- Today I was in Quora, and would like to suggest an article "Lists of Support Groups".


For the U.S., start with the lists at http://www.mhanational.org/find-support-groups 2601:8A:C180:70:F575:D259:BCDB:65F1 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

IP, if you actually are Simesa, why are you not logged in? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 21:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Play fair - that was a bit sharp, wasn't it? Could you remember a password after 13 year's of inactivity? I certainly couldn't!
@ former Simesa - Thank you for your suggestion. I'm not sure that would be that helpful. Not all the key support groups would necessarily be notable, and thus wouldn't be eligible to be on such a list. But if we had such a page it might be interpreted as being a helpful directory listing, yet miss lots of groups off. That could be damaging to some users. But it is an interesting point to consider, and there could be other ways of looking at it, of course. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I probably could but that's probably because I use the same password for everything with some variations Apologies I was merely asking out of curiousity. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, I must correct you on how long it's been since they last edited Wikipedia. They've been inactive for about 7 1/2 years (that's how long it's been since their latest contribution). Still, that's a long time to be gone and a reasonable amount of time to forget a password. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 00:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf You're quite right on that one - I'm having real display problems on Chrome on one particular laptop this week - it keeps missing chunks off the page. As a result, I'd not noticed I was looking at one particular page history, rather than their full contributions. Sorry. (It's like editing through a letterbox right now!) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
For "lists of support groups", who is going to keep this up to date in the coming months and years? An article like this can easily become stale. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Editing Elements[edit]

How do I add user boxes to my user page? ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@ExoplanetaryNova: Hello Nova! You simply just put the location of the userbox in curly brackets, so for example, to use my Opera GX userbox I made, you would type {{User:Blaze Wolf/Userboxes/Opera GX}}Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: Here's another link for more userboxes. WP:USERBOXES Severestorm28 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf Then how do I make userboxes? ExoplanetaryNova (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: Not Blaze Wolf, but maybe this Wikipedia article may help. WP:CREATEUSERBOX Severestorm28 23:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: If you try making a userbox but you can't quite figure it out I just want to let you know that I am always here if you want a custom userbox made. Just make sure you ask me on my talk page and not the Teahouse if you want one. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@ExoplanetaryNova: if I'm being honest, I almost never create a userbox from scratch. All 3 of the userboxes I've made (only 1 I've added to the userbox gallery) I've based off of another userbox. I based my Opera GX userbox off of ZeroOne's Opera userbox. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article submission not approved[edit]

I received a message that our submission was not accepted because "they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Adam Epstein is a former Broadway producer who won 12 Tony Awards, including for the original production of the hit musical "Hairspray", and is now the host of the acclaimed podcast, "Dirty Moderate with Adam Epstein". The youngest Tony Winner for Best Musical since 1955 (at the time) and his Broadway credits seem to be both "notable" and "remarkable" as according to the Wikipedia Notability requirements.

I have linked independent sources such as playbill.com that show his credits as a producer, as well as the production company responsible for producing Mr. Epstein's podcast. I am writing on behalf of Mr. Epstein. 72.177.69.1 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

COURTESY: Draft:Adam Epstein, and the creating editor has declared a COI on User page. David notMD (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Subject meets WP:ANYBIO given the Tony but its mostly/all primary sourced and connected sources. Not sure that's enough to decline as it would likely survive AfD(if only because the gnomes will find a better source).Slywriter (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Submitting article for review[edit]

I have been advised to do this for an article I'm writing but the option doesn't appear, even when I add the code {{AfC submission|||ts=20220128004906|u=SA222F|ns=4}} to the top of the text. How can I do this? Do I just publish the article again? Last time I did this, it was reverted with no explanation and I had to ask directly to get an understanding. SA222F (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, I just needed to publish it... SA222F (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SA222F. First a couple of questions and then a suggestion.
Are you connected to this organization in any way? I'm asking this because your account is only a couple days old and the first thing you tried to do was create an article about this organization; moreover, you also posted above that you just needed to publish it. So, at first glance, you have at least an WP:APPARENTCOI. FWIW, this doesn't mean that an article cannot be created but it will be easier for others to help you if you're completely transparent about any connection you have with Draft:Queer Screen. Many Wikipedia editors tend to be more willing to help out when they feel the person asking for assistance isn't trying to pull a fast one.
Have you read through Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) or Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The former explains what generally needs to be established for a company or organization to have an article about it added to Wikipedia; in particular, close attention needs to be paid to this. The latter is what Wikipedia refers to as an WP:ESSAY, but it also contains information that you might find helpful.
Finally, you might want to ask the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies for assistance with this draft since they are most likely as familiar as anyone with assessing the subject's Wikipedia:Notability and how to best write such articles. You can also try Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia too. Posting a message on the talk page of either of those two WikiProjects should get a response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, I meant I just needed to publish the draft for the review to appear, I thought there would be another button that would pop up. Not that I just needed to publish the article and get out of here, sorry for the confusion. Yes, I am affiliated with Queer Screen, but I am not trying to pull a fast one so to speak. I genuinely believe that redirecting the page for Queer Screen to the page for Mardi Gras Film Festival is erroneous, as it doesn't cover the scope of what Queer Screen achieves, including the other notable festivals and community outreach, all of which I've cited in the draft article. Furthermore, it's of note as you say to the LGBT community and is included in various archives (some of which are also cited). I have amended other articles in the past under a different username, but no longer have the login details, but I can appreciate how this appears.
I have read through the notability article and believe Queer Screen is notable enough to warrant an entry. Thanks again! SA222F (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I left a comment on your draft as none of the sources provide anything beyond a passing mention of the organization. WP:NORG gives more specifics about notability for organizations. WP:THREE reliable sources independent of the subject is a good rule of thumb.Slywriter (talk) 02:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to remove something from edit history?[edit]

I don't really like something in my edit history. Is it possible to remove it? InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@InterstateFive: Hello I-5 Interstate Five! While there is a way to remove (really just hide) edit from the edit history, it will not be done just because you don't like it. See WP:OVERSIGHT and WP:REVDEL for more info. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's on my user page, not on some random Wikipedia article. Does the same policy still apply? InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@InterstateFive: Yes the same policy still applies. Policies apply across all of Wikipedia (with few, if any, exceptions). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
K, thanks! InterstateFive (talk) - just another roadgeek 01:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@InterstateFive: NO problem. Glad I could help. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, thank you for replying inline and signing I'm only saying this because a lot of users who come to this page don't know how to do that which is understandable. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 01:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If it's the user page you could request deletion of your userpage. That deletes the entire page incl. edit history. Not something you could request on a frequent base though. Details are explained at WP:U1, basically just need to add {{Db-u1}} to your userpage. And don't forget beforehand to save content from it in case you wanna use it again in the future. – NJD-DE (talk) 01:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@NJD-DE: Wouldn't the edit history be restored if they recreate their userpage? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Njd-de: I hate it when people's usernames in their sig don't match the case of their actual usernameBlaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If there's no contributions from other editors the edit history wouldn't need to be retained, and I don't see a need for restoring the history then upon recreation of the userpage – unless they'd request undeletion. Entirely deleting the userpage really would be only a last-resort option anyway IMO.
Sorry for the inconvenience. When I created my account few years ago I was expecting that usernames aren't case-sensitive. Then I learned better, and I tried to "fix" it with the signature back then. Quickly learnt that's not ideal either, but never did anything about it again..NJD-DE (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Njd-de: Alright sounds good! And don't worry, it's merely a minor annoyance. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate wikidata entries[edit]

2 Duplicate Wikidata e I noticed there are 3 WikiData entries for Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library, and the following two are duplicates, and it makes it annoying searching for it. [3] [4] I cannot tag these or mark them for deletion, so could an administrator delete them? Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 02:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lallint, thanks for reporting this! There were three Wikidata items: Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (Q7370120), Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (Q69967544), and Roswell P. Flower Memorial Library (Q69486211). The last one is distinct, since it refers to the entire library system, rather than to the building at 229 Washington St., Watertown, NY. But for the former two, I merged them. If you come across something like this again in the future, you can follow the instructions at wikidata:Help:Merge to merge items using the gadget. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick Sandbox Question[edit]

Good evening, Hosts. I have just published my first Wikipedia article, but prior to doing so I used my Sandbox to draft the article, make edits, and so on. Now that I no longer have use for the draft article, is there a specific process/procedure I should utilize for clearing out my Sandbox?

My first inclination was simply to delete all of the text I had built in the Sandbox and then hit "Publish", but that seemed illogical since I would be telling Wiki's writing application to publish an entirely blank page.

Thank you in advance for your input and guidance.

Jeff Baker Bozeman, Montana Wikibaker (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Wikibaker (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikibaker: Hello Jeff! Actually, that is the logical thing to do in this case, to blank the page and save it. YOu could also request for it to be deleted, however just blanking the page to use later would be much easier and quicker. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Blaze Wolf. Will do. (and thanks for the reminder on signing my comments) Wikibaker (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, Wikibaker, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Your sandbox is yours to do with as you please essentially, so you can certainly blank the page (delete all of the text and hit publish). If you want the page deleted, you can request a speedy deletion WP:G7. This will completely delete the page and its history, and you'd need to create the sandbox again if you wanted to use it in the future. ––FormalDude talk 02:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks FormalDude - I'll just delete out the content and hit Publish Changes as you suggest. I appreciate both your and Blaze Wolf's super-fast response. Wikibaker (talk) 15:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wikibaker: Glad I could help! It helps when you don't have much else to do except stare at your watchlist. Also, when replying to responses, please remember to add your signature by typing ~~~~Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 02:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

My international organization only for fun (micronation type thing) (My own Astronomical Organization)[edit]

How can I make my own organization page in Wikipedia without marking my page as a "hoax"? I want to make my own organization about space and stuff, so everyone could just be interested in my group.Just like Facebook groups, or something like that. (I know, why English is very bad)

Ps: I'm a vexillologist and a science student. Gio loto (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gio loto: Welcome to the Teahouse! Wikipedia is not the place to create an article to promote your own organization - see WP:PROMO. Social media may be a better avenue for you. GoingBatty (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, In order to make the article decided by WMF Group. NTDEV (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Gio loto: I'm sorry, but you seem to have mis-undertood the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not the place to announce or publicize your planned venture. It is an encyclopaedia, where we write articles about established, notable subjects. Your organization will only have an article here after it is well established and has extensive in-depth coverage in the media. Until then, it is too soon.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources for discographies?[edit]

Is there a reliable alternative to Discogs for album personnel? Before you ask, AllMusic didn't have the information.  Sumanuil 07:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sumanuil: How about using {{cite AV media notes}} and using the album itself? GoingBatty (talk) 15:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Just a note that per WP:RSP, Discogs is considered unreliable, and AllMusic is considered reliable for reviews but marginal for biographical data. CodeTalker (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know the album itself could be used as a source. But then again, you can use books, so why not other printed text? Sumanuil 22:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

New content[edit]

New content in Wikipedia Di.anamalinowska (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, can anyone review my contribution on Wikipedia? It`s about implementing new subject- Electrum, that is independent power creator, leading activity in renewable energy sources. As we are now expanding abroad (Israel, Eastern Europe), I would like others to confirm our identity though different sources on the Internet, such as Wikipedia. Will be grafetul for the feedback!  Di.anamalinowska (talk) 09:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the < ! - - you had added around your question because that made the question invisible, also the ref marks bracketing the name of the company. David notMD (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I see you have created article draft content in your sandbox: User:Di.anamalinowska/sandbox. I leave to other Teahouse hosts to advise on proper way to attempt an article about a company. David notMD (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It would really help if a commentator who speaks Polish would chip in, since the majority of the independent sources seem to be in Polish.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Di.anamalinowska: Welcome to the Teahouse! To receive a review of your draft, you could move it to Draft:Electrum (company) and add {{subst:submit}} to the top. I see you uploaded the images as your "Own work". Did you design the logo and take those photographs? Are you an employee of Electrum, or have you been hired by Electrum to create an article? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
There is already an article on Polish-language Wikipedia pl:Electrum (przedsiębiorstwo) that has most of the content and the same images. It is currently being discussed for deletion there! It was created last December by Di.anamalinowska, who states she works as a copywriter/marketing specialist in renewables industry. Here on English Wikpedia the way to go is certainly via WP:AfC. It is not forbidden to create a draft (or a translation) if you have a conflict of interest but paid editing must be disclosed on your User Page and the company will need to pass our usual notability test. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dead link removal[edit]

http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Eyesurgeon

I was searching for eye content related and ended up in the above link. There is a list of references on of which seem spammy / advertising. I tried to click on it to verify but it leads to a dead page. Tried to remove but was unable to do so.

Unsure how to proceed.

It's the first link in the references table. 46.177.47.2 (talk) 10:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You appear to have pointed us to the wrong page, but for general advice on dead links, see Wikipedia:Link rot. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry posted the wrong link! This is the correct!

http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/User:Eyesurgeon

I was searching for eye content related and ended up in the above link. There is a list of references on of which seem spammy / advertising. I tried to click on it to verify but it leads to a dead page. Tried to remove but was unable to do so.

Unsure how to proceed.

It's the first link in the references table 46.177.47.2 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Merging sections ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 11:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing ths matter up. This user page is very similar to -- or the same as? (I didn't check) -- the article Von Graefe knife (which itself is very unsatisfactory). A user page is no place for an article, or an article draft. I'd go ahead and delete it, if I weren't so sleepy (and therefore worried about the risk of making some mistake somewhere). Over to somebody in a different time zone. -- Hoary (talk) 12:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It also looks like that user was almost blocked in 2008. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 12:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That user has not edited since 2008 and was clearly drafting the article on their User Page rather than in Main Space. When they realized it wasn't appearing in Google searches, they simply created the article Von Graefe knife with the (accurate) edit summary My User Eyesurgeon article does not come up through a Wikipedia Search. Perhaps the title Von Graefe Knife will result in the articles being found through Wikipedia Search and things have gone on from there. I've no idea what the policy is about deleting ancient User Pages. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I've blanked the user page, and fixed a couple of problems in the external links section of the article (which still has major problems). -- Hoary (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

creating my own wiki page for business facts.[edit]

hi, im looking to create a wiki page for my business, just giving the history, facts and a small bit about myself. I have submitted once and got banned, i dont want this to happen and im just looking for some help. Thomvic2022 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

If you got banned you must not edit here. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless you go back and successfully appeal the ban (that was of you at a different account?). And was that blocked or banned? David notMD (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Thomvic2022, welcome to the Teahouse. Before creating it again, you have to delcare on what is called a COI (Conflict of Interest). You need to strongly delcare your article a COI before you wanted to create for your business. It means that you are creating an article for yourself, your business, or your friend, or whoever you have a relationship with. Please declare a COI before creating your article. Thank you. Severestorm28 13:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@David notMD: Is Thomvic2022 a sockpuppet of a different banned account? I searched in the block log and found no results. Severestorm28 13:51, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
If Thomvic2022 was in fact blocked (banned?) at a previous account and no one has had reason to initiate a sockpuppet investigation, there would be no record of such in Thomvic2022's Contributions. Alternative possibility is that an earlier submission was Declined or Rejected, but no action taken against the editor. We need Thomvic2022 to clarify situation. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Separate from that discussion, Wikipedia has articles about notable organizations and people, not pages for whoever wants to post whatever. That's what social media is for. David notMD (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Portal/ Pages about leading figures of international environmental/climate movement[edit]

Is there a discussion about creating portal/pages for leading figures of international environmental/climate movement? Ballancier (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ballancier and welcome to the Teahouse. The general way to answer questions like this is to look at the Talk Page of an article you are sure will be already written (for example Talk:Greta Thunberg) and see which Wikipedia Projects are interested in it. So one on the environment and one on climate change are amongst the places you might like to investigate further. Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Disappearance of Teresa Davidson-Murphy[edit]

I added more specific references i.e. actual news articles. Can The entry I created for the Disappearance of Teresa Davidson-Murphy be looked at again and reconsider for publishing? VoiceFor (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtest link: User:VoiceFor/sandbox/Disappearance of Teresa (Terry) Anne Davidson-Murphy. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@VoiceFor: There is a chance that if you submit Draft:Disappearance of Teresa Anne Davidson-Murphy it may be accepted. Your current draft is not suitable for Wikipedia though, as it does not use reliable sources and is largely unverified. ––FormalDude talk 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@VoiceFor: Per WP:NCRIME, “People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead.” TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 14:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No to what is the Sandbox draft, as it contains tremendous amounts of content that has no connection to her disappearance. It appears that FormalDude took the libery of creating a very short draft with a few references - at Draft:Disappearance of Teresa Anne Davidson-Murphy - and proposed that as an alternative. Not clear why, and also no potential to becoming an accepted article. David notMD (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

url issue with Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr. page[edit]

Hello, Thanks for inviting me to this page. I recently discovered that when I copy this page http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Alexander_Wadsworth_Longfellow_Jr. into an email the "." somehow breaks the page. I put in a request to possibly rename the page from Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr. --> Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow that would be nice, if it didn't cause any big problems. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks Archivingperson (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Archivingperson: that is not a valid reason to rename the page, but I created Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr as a redirect to Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr.. The email problem is simply that when you copy a bare url your email program thinks the period is not part of the url. This depends on the program used. MKFI (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Note that you caused a broken link yourself in your message by using the full URL ending with the period. In Wikipedia we use a wikilink, so Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow Jr.. A redirect exists from Alexander Wadsworth Longfellow, so you can use the URL http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Alexander_Wadsworth_Longfellow --David Biddulph (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Khogong[edit]

Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Khogong

Are all its sources ok? -- Karsan Chanda (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Karsan Chanda: Apologies if this sounds a bit rude, however I think it would be best if that article were moved to draftspace. It's literally only 1 sentence with 6 or 7 references attached to it (all of which are google books refs). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Karsan Chanda: No, they are not. Adding several copies of the same source (one source was added twice, and another source three times) is not helpful to the reader, and Raj era sources should not be used in articles on the history of India. Not to mention the fact that you had asked about some of these sources before. It is fine to ask questions, of course, but when you ask the same questions multiple times, it looks like you haven't actually read the answers you got before. I have moved the article to draftspace. --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yesterday you created a similarly flimsy draft Draft:Amagarh Fort with eleven words and nine references, then asked for help here at Teahouse. This time, 21 words and eight references. Please stop. You are wasting your time and that of hosts here, and draft reviewers. If you intend to submit drafts, please write enough content that the draft at least qualifies as a Stub. David notMD (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
When I look at your User page, I see a list of articles you either created or edited. Many of the ones you created are of the same nature - one sentence and several references. You bypassed AfC. Please consider returning to these and adding more content derived from the references, so those would at least be valid Stubs. Furthermore, your Talk page is littered with Speedy deletions, Proposed deletions, declined AfCs and articles that were draftified. All this confirms a need to improve draft quality. David notMD (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a competence-is-required problem, examples of which are clear at Draft talk:Alan Singh wherein Karsan Chanda repeatedly drops in "Help me" without showing any progress toward understanding how Wikipedia functions. Intentions are good - creating articles about all things India - but execution has become a time sink for others. David notMD (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Life sciences[edit]

What are organic compounds and inorganic compounds=........ What are molecules=...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phumzza (talkcontribs) 16:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Try reading organic compound, inorganic compound, and molecule. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: Also, if you're asking to get help on your homework for school (based off of how you type out the questions), please figure it out on your own. While Wikipedia does try and provide reliable information, it's not made to help you cheat on your homework. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're looking for help in understanding a scientific concept, you can try asking at the science reference desk, though again, it's not a place for someone to do your homework for you. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit[edit]

Can you please help me more about editing I don't understand..am new to Wikipedia.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phumzza (talkcontribs) 16:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Check out WP:TWA. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Phumzza: Also check out WP:TUTORIAL RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

How to filter search for userbox?[edit]

How do I filter my search in the Wikipedia search box, to where it will only get results for userboxes? The Tips of Apmh 16:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@The Tips of Apmh: There isn't one specific way to search userboxes since they are usually created by individual users and therefore are in userspace. There is User:UBX where a user can optionally transfer their userbox to, however not all userboxes are there. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@The Tips of Apmh: There’s a search box on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Galleries/alphabetical.TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
There's that as well. Although I'm fairly sure not even that has all userboxes created and being used by users (I have 2 userboxes that are the exact same as other userboxes on there but with the addition of a parameter that i found would be useful for the userbox, however I'm not adding them since I don't know if that would be allowed). ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Harmonic Oscillator page has a corrupt element that causes browser crash.[edit]

Hi all, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to report this, but the page for Harmonic Oscillators (http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator) has a corrupt element that causes my version of google chrome (Version 97.0.4692.99 (Official Build) (64-bit)) to crash. It occurs just after I scroll past the Table of Contents. Just wanted to put this somewhere in cases someone who is technically minded wished to inspect it. OrgoOgro (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Ben

@OgroOgro: Works just fine for me.. although the page does seem to lag a bit which is unusual. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@OrgoOgro: Why does your username have to have 2 words that are so similar (nothing you did, just me) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@OrgoOrgo: Woops mixed up the g and r. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf: Strange, when I access that page, as soon as I scroll past the 4th equation in the section "Driven harmonic Oscillators" my entire browser freezes and becomes unresponsive. I just checked it again. Also I have no clue what I'm doing with HTML, so sorry if I mess anything up, just copying what seems like relevant formatting from your messages. Username is a combo of my old highschool nickname and the fact that I'm a chemist. Ogro is usually taken, so I think its fun to make an eyeball twister! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrgoOgro (talkcontribs)
@OrgoOgro: I would suggest asking at WP:VPT where there are people who know what they're doing. ALso that's alright. Just make sure to sign with ~~~~ when replying. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It works fine for me to, but is a bit laggy like Blaze Wolf said. I think because the page has so many images and math equation pictures it makes you computer freeze and makes mine and Blaze’s lag. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@OrgoOgro: Welcome to the Teahouse. Like Blaze Wolf said, you might be able to find some more help at WP:VPT, but from my personal observations (also using Chrome 97.0.4692.99), I didn't notice any crashes or lag when scrolling through the page or doing some test editing. There don't seem to be too many templates used on the page (which usually explains longer loading times). Could there be some extension you've added to Chrome that may be causing these problems? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Likewise, @OrgoOgro, it's fine on Chrome on my fast desktop, but might struggle on my much slower laptop. What I do whenever Chrome plays up is do a clean reboot of my computer, as I heard somewhere that Chrome often keeps hold of computer memory allocations,[citation needed] even after being closed. Have you tried that and does it work for you? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Is something from Substack considered a reliable source? Anything? Nothing?[edit]

I could not find anything about Substack on here, http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources. Can someone please let me know if something published via that platform is in fact RS material and thus qualified for use as secondary source citation in articles? http://substack.com/ Th78blue (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that depends. Substack is simply a publishing platform that anyone can use, so it must be treated like a blog, or any other newsletter from Mailchimp, or what have you. If the author is a subject matter expert, then maybe, depending on the context. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Right, the guidelines at WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS would apply. DanCherek (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Th78blue: Welcome to the Teahouse. Other users have chimed in on Substack's reliability above me, but there have been mentions of it in the reliable sources noticeboard, such as this discussion, which seem to agree that using it for BLP articles that aren't about the subject of said Substack is not allowed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I am being harassed[edit]

I am being repeatedly harassed with personal attacks by Scobserv here http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kumud_Das_(3rd_nomination) and here http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft%3ASanjib_Baruah. The user Scobserv just signed up today for the sole purpose to harass me. May I ask for help here? Arunudoy (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arunudoy: Sorry you had to deal with that. The editor in question has been warned. If they continue to harass you we can report them to an administrator and have them blocked. If you feel they have posted personal information about you, per WP:OUTING, you may contact the oversight team to have the content removed from the page and its histories. ––FormalDude talk 18:49, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
FormalDude talk, he did again and more serious in http://en.turkcewiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Draft%3ASanjib_Baruah. He is accussing me as other. --Arunudoy (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arunudoy: I know, you mentioned that already. As I said they have been warned and if it continues they will be blocked from editing. In the meantime, if you feel they have posted personal information about you, you should contact the oversight team. ––FormalDude talk 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@Arunudoy: I've redacted the outing and requesting it be oversighted. I'm not going to go much farther than this because I don't want to get dragged into this mess. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


Thank you FormalDude talk and Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 for your kind help. Regards- Arunudoy (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
UPDATE: Scobserv indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Want to check an organization's notability[edit]

Hi! I want to request an article for an organization. But before I do that, I want to make sure that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I have gone through WP:ORG, but I still want to be sure. I have a few references that I'd like to share so that an experienced editor can go through them and check whether the organization is notable enough. Is Teahouse the right place to share such references? Toofllab (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You can ask at the Teahouse yes. I also want to ask are you associated with the company? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 20:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
But, Toofllab, please don't do what some editors do, and post a great long list of references here. Choose the best three or four. If those establish notability, fine. If they don't, it's unlikely that twenty or a hundred weaker ones will do so. --ColinFine (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Kaleeb18 Yes, I am. I created a draft and tried publishing it before I was aware of such disclosures. But then I declared my COI on the draft talk and stopped editing it (Draft:Retailo). From what I understand, I need to request a relevant WikiProject to create this article, but before I do that, I want to ensure that it meets the notability requirements. Here are the references: 1, 2, 3, 4. Hope I've done what's needed. Toofllab (talk) 22:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm afraid not, TGoofllab. I can't seem to open no 3, but the other three are all obviously based on press releases, saying what Retailo wants to say, not what an independent reporter says. Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources.
This is therefore somewhat irrelevant, but you're not correct that you need to request a WikiProject to create an article: editors with a COI are permitted to create articles, as long as they declare their COI, and use AFC to put the draft through a review. --ColinFine (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism redirecting article of wikipedia[edit]

Resolved

Is there an official article of plagiarism made by moderators on here? If so, can someone redirect me to that article? Thanks. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you looking for WP:PLAGIARISM? ––FormalDude talk 20:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
TheAlienMan2002, Wikipedia:Plagiarism, perhaps? Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed i was…thanks! TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete Brawl Stars#Seasons[edit]

Hello. I'm 애국심 존중. I Have Question. I Think Brawl Stars#Season Is Violated Many Wikipedia's Policy.

  1. WP:NOTGUIDE
  2. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not
  3. WP:VGSCOPE

But When I Editing Talk:Brawl Stars No one Reads. Please See Talk:Brawl Stars. Thank you. 💻HACKER (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, 애국심 존중. I tend to agree with you, and have deleted the table of trivia. You could have been 'Been Bold' and done it yourself after not getting any reply for a week. But always be prepared to discuss and reason your actions with other editors. I have reformatted your question as it helps to be a bit less spread out over the page and makes your post more readable. I hope you don't mind. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick questions about Wikipedia articles[edit]

Hello, my fellow Wikipedians, I am new to Wikipedia but I am here to stay. I have a few quick questions and I want to learn them before editing or publishing pages. I have added the pages I want to edit, translate or create to my user page under the title of PIWC.

1 - ) On my first day, I have created a draft about an e-sports organization and send it for review. Today I realize that can add a few more sources (while the sources I have used are valid). I haven't heard about it yet (it's been 3 days), I wonder if I can make changes and send it for review again if it is not approved.

2 - ) There is a specific plant that grows where I live, however, most of the sources I have found are in another language. Since it's an endemic plant, it is hard to find sources in English, is it okay to use foreign sources?

3 - ) There is a service I actively use and I can find various sources about it but they are mostly blogs ("the bla bla softwares/services you should use in 2022" kind). I also find its description on other sites, and its profile on review platforms like G2 or Capterra. (I am not sure if it is okay to add business profiles on Crunchbase or LinkedIn, so I am not planning to include them). Are these sources enough for notability?

4 - ) I like to translate two articles in my native language (magazines), can I transfer their sources (not English) to the pages I create? In addition, I worked in one of these magazines as an intern before, can I still write an article about it?

5 - ) There is a local plateau where I live, I know almost every inch of it and its conditions, but I can not find sources about it. Would giving map coordinates and official data I have found be enough or should I not create the page at all.

I know I kind of dumped all my questions here, and I appreciate any support I get. Thank you all! TheWirelessMonkey (talk) 23:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheWirelessMonkey: See below:
1) You can always edit and it won't change the review, except to make it likelier that the article will be approved. You need more sources besides HLTV.org to demonstrate notability. Symbol redirect vote2.svg Courtesy link: Draft:Eternal Fire (Esports Organization)
2) You can use foreign sources.
3) Blogs are unreliable sources. Social media like LinkedIn can't be used since they are user generated. Crunchbase is divisive, but you can use Crunchbase News.
4) You can translate but just don't do it literally so you won't violate the copyright. Writing about a former company is OK.
5) Coordinates won't be enough - there needs to be some indication of why this is a significant place. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hello, TheWirelessMonkey, and welcome to the Teahouse and to Wikipedia.
  1. - you can certainly continue to work on a draft after submitting it for review: you haven't "sent" it anywhere - you've put it on a list of drafts awaiting review.
  2. - English language sources are preferred if they are available, but if not, other language sources are acceptable, provided they are reliably published. See WP:NONENG.
  3. Most blogs are not acceptable as sources. see WP:RS.
  4. Yes, provided the sources are reliable. See WP:translation. If you worked at one of the magazines, you probably have a conflict of interest: this does not bar you from writing or tranlasting the article, as long as you are open about your COI.
  5. Probably not. Inhabited places are normally taken as notable by default, but other geographical features need sourcing.
Happy editing. --ColinFine (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)