Wikipedia:Teahouse

RudolfRed, a Teahouse host

Welcome to the Teahouse!
Your go-to place for friendly help with using and editing Wikipedia.

Ask a question

Question forumMeet your hostsArticles to improveBecome a host

Can't edit this page? ; a volunteer will visit you there shortly!

New to Wikipedia? See our tutorial for new editors or introduction to contributing page.
Note: Newer questions appear at the bottom of the Teahouse. Completed questions are archived within 2–3 days.

Help Wikipedia

Adding own works

Hello, I'm new.

What are the rules on adding my own work as sources or further reading to pages? Does this constitute a conflict of interest or should I go ahead? If it's a problem, are there workarounds that maintain Wikipedia integrity?

Thanks! Charcoo (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Charcoo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You are correct that it would be a conflict of interest for you to make edits related to your own work. You are welcome to make a formal edit request(click for instructions), detailing changes you feel are needed and the reason- this may appear to others as if you are promoting your own work, so you will need to give a reason that it adds to the article. 331dot (talk) 14:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help. Charcoo (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Charcoo: The policy at WP:SELFCITE implies that you may sometimes add citations to your own work directly (i.e. not always using edit requests). This would, for example, cover peer-reviewed publications in academic journals which are not excessive in the context of the rest of the article in question. Mike Turnbull (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Michael. Charcoo (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Malewashing bias on the Juneteenth article--editors removing intersectional additions to create neutrality as "original research"

Hello,

I was reading the article on the new Juneteenth federal holiday and I was concerned because in talking about the history of the holiday it repeatedly implies all African-Americans had the same legal "emancipated" status that lead to these celebrations, normalizing the idea that what is history for "men" is real history and acting like that is the history for all. The page lacked neutrality, in other words.

This is an exact parallel error as if an article on women's suffrage celebrations said that "all" women could vote after the 19th Amendment was passed. In fact, the Wiki article on the 19th Amendment has a lengthy section on how that did not apply to women of color in practice because of Jim Crow laws. Emancipation did not apply to African-American women in practice because of common law coverture. Further, African-American women leaders at the time knew this and spoke out against coverture. Also, African-American women leaders have been speaking out about coverture laws ever since, up until the present day. Further, Juneteenth celebrations often cover this fact of the "unfinished business" and honor the African-American women leaders who spoke out against it.

In an attempt to make the page more neutral, I formed all this into an edit, complete with ample RS connecting this to Juneteenth celebrations and the editors told me it was "original research" and did a hatchet job on the edit, removing the women leaders' voices, but leaving their names. Which to me is saying, "These icons of history can be SEEN, but not HEARD," and is a form of censoring women's voices. Please note that I do connect this "unfinished business" to Juneteenth celebrations. For example, Sojourner Truth's life and advocacy is regularly celebrated through reading lists that contain her biography that includes this advocacy and I found a Juneteenth screening of a documentary of Pauli Murray's life--she coined the term "Jane Crow" to talk about sex discrimination in the law towards African-American women in particular.

Further, the article talks about how Juneteenth is celebrated in other ways, like breakfasts and dressing up for re-enactments.

This, to me, is a clear double standard. Talking about white supremacy in the history of women's emancipation is relevant, but talking about male supremacy in the history of African-American emancipation, the women who fought against it, and the people who celebrate that today in Juneteenth commemorations is "off topic."

Worse, multiple editors are engaging in personal attacks towards me on the talk page--that I am "callous" had a "political agenda" that I am trying to "Right a Great Wrong," that I should go publish research instead of editing wikipedia, etcs. One editor said the problem with my edit was that it was injecting "too much feminism" into the article. All the usual stuff that people get when they try to include diverse voices. Which is ironic on a page about Juneteenth, which is including diverse voices in American history. One editor straight up said that I can't write about the male supremacy in African-American history because racists will use that to discredit the history of chattel slavery--and that actually IS politically motivated reasoning for removing my edit. Multiple fallacious, extreme straw arguments were made and attributed to me to make me look unreasonable an unhinged and my boundaries against these violations of wikipedia talk page standards was called "abuse." So, there's four issues here:

1) The implicit bias in the Juneteenth page making male history the default history

2) Labeling an attempt to remove that bias by adding diverse voices "original content" and gutting the necessary context from the edit.

3) The explicit bias in how this type of edit is viewed across articles: i.e. removing intersectional edits that call out male supremacy in African-American history out of fear, but allowing edits that call out white supremacy in women's history because that improves the article (which it does, btw). In other words, normalizing a Wiki standard in which intersectionality only goes one way.

4) The disrespectful hostile environment in the talk page towards a person attempting to make this type of edit, that is in violation of wiki standards of respectful communication.

It seems like they are not seeing the bias of the page and so are seeing my correction of the bias as bias.

My question is: Do you see anything wrong with this edit? If so, can you see how I can fix it to be able to point out the necessary addition of coverture to the article? The editors specifically do not want to discuss coverture or the fact that that unfinished is noted in Juneteenth celebrations. Celebrating Juneteenth with pancakes? Military uniforms? Great! Celebrating by noting "unfinished business for women?" That's FEMINISM!! We can't have THAT! It will reflect negatively on African-American men! But no one has a problem with calling out the racism in the women's suffrage movement...

Here is my edit:

Honoring African-American women’s rights leaders in Juneteenth Celebrations Juneteenth commemorations,[72][73][74] recommended reading lists, [75] [76][77] and documentaries screened as part of Juneteenth celebrations [78][79] honor the unique contributions of African-American women leaders such as Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, Francis Harper, Pauli Murray [80] and “countless others” who “fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens.”[81] These intersectional Juneteenth remembrances acknowledge the unique position of African-American women after the abolition of slavery. African-American women not only had no legal protection against discrimination of the basis of sex,[82][83] but the common law doctrine of “coverture” gave African-American fathers and husbands legal control over their daughters’ and wives’ property and persons, including women’s education, wages and their own children.[84] [85]Husbands also had an absolute right to sexual access to their wives. "Within marriage, a wife’s consent was implied, so under the law, all sex-related activity, including rape, was legitimate. A man wasn’t allowed to beat his wife to death, but he could beat her."[86][87]

Notable examples of the women's rights advocacy of African-American women that are honored in Juneteenth celebrations include Sojourner Truth’s "Address to the First Annual Meeting of the American Equal Rights Association" in 1867. [88] Speaking directly to African-American men, Truth connected the similarities between coverture and chattel slavery, “You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us.” In 1866, Francis Harper maintained that "justice is not fulfilled so long as woman is unequal before the law" in a speech given to the Eleventh National Women’s Rights Convention. [89] Over a century later, in 1965, Pauli Murray, a founder of the National Organization for Women, examined how African-American women still did not have equal protection of the law against sex discrimination in an influential George Washington Law Review essay “Jane Crow and the Law: Sex Discrimination and Title VII.” [90] [91] In June, 2021, Koleika Seigle, the first African-American president of the California chapter of the National Organization for Women, addressed the California legislature during public hearings on proposed legislation to end the state's leniencies afforded to spousal rapists, stating "rape is rape, whether you're married or not." [92][93]

And here is how it was gutted of necessary context:

Honoring African-American women’s rights leaders in Juneteenth Celebrations[edit source] Juneteenth commemorations,[72][73][74] recommended reading lists, [75] [76][77] and documentaries screened as part of Juneteenth celebrations [78][79] honor the unique contributions of African-American women leaders such as Sojourner Truth, Ida B. Wells, Francis Harper, Pauli Murray [80] and “countless others” who “fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens.”[81]

You can read my edit here to see how the RS connects this to Juneteenth celebrations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juneteenth&oldid=1033159461

And how it was changed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juneteenth&oldid=1033173996

My user name is AmorLucis (it says below not to sign with tildes)

Thank you for your help. AmorLucis (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@AmorLucis Welcome to the Teahouse. We don't help adjudicate disputes here. If an agreement can't be reached, you take this to dispute resolution (noticeboard). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I thought this page helped with improving edits, no? Can give an opinion on the edit and whether or not it's "original research?" I did already take it to dispute resolution, I'm not asking for help disputing the edit. I'm asking for help on the edit. I just talked about the dispute to give the edit context. AmorLucis (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I'll have a go at summarising the problem, but since it hasn't got sorted at the article's talk page (which is the right place for sorting such things) I haven't much confidence I'll do a better job here. But as this is the TeaHouse, not the talk-page, I'll concentrate on the general problem, not the specific problem.

The general problem is this: because Wikipedia is a tertiary source, if we have a reference that says the sea is wet, and another that says Mr Smith fell in the sea, we are not allowed to say that Mr Smith got wet. A secondary source, bringing together and summarising primary sources, and written in the voice of the secondary source's published author, can say such things. We don't write with our names attached as authors, so in that sense, we're not allowed to "think" or have opinions. In the Juneteenth article, you've argued that (1) the article is about how coloured men gained rights, but (2) married women had no legal rights, their rights being subsumed in those of their husband and therefore (1)+(2) married women were denied the rights that were given to coloured men, and therefore weren't emancipated. It may be true, but it's a synthesis of two (different) areas of law. I personally think that the other editors are right to keep this to a minimal part of the article, if it gets in at all, because Juneteenth is about colour versus white, not about male versus female. At the time, married white women suffered from precisely the same discrimination. Had the gender discrimination not existed, the emancipation would have been universal. If you put the male versus female bit into what should be an article commemorating emancipation, it waters down and weakens a historic and incredibly important thing: the realisation that coloured people should have the same legal rights as white people. This is too important a thing to lose. That's not to say that the realisation women should have the same rights as men isn't also vitally important, but it's different, and needs to go in a different article. Also, I'd suggest it's a really good idea not to use such terms as Malewashing. Wikipedia is written by a lot of people doing their best to be neutral, to report carefully what the secondary sources say, and in a balanced way. If you use highly aggressive and accusatory terms like this, people will rapidly become upset and uncooperative. A final point: there are a lot of feminists in the world, and WP's editors represent a fairly broad cross-section of society; it's unlikely you're the only person who feels strongly about feminism in that talk-page. If you're not getting any support in a fairly active debate, it may be worth asking yourself why. It's really hard to edit on subjects about which we feel strongly. Personally, I think it's sometimes easier to step away from emotive subjects and come back a bit later, having re-thought. Good luck! Elemimele (talk)

@AmorLucis:  Courtesy link: Juneteenth This should be on the talk page, and formed as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm taking this elsewhere, but I don't want to let these troubling comments go unaddressed here:

I'm not talking about feminism. I'm talking about intersectional consistency. And I'm saying that without it, articles are not neutral.

Thank you for your honest summary because a lot of what you said was further evidence that intersectional inconsistency is systemic in Wikipedia editing and that the nuances of intersectionality have not yet caught on across the board here. So you helped me to be even more confident in my position that what we have here is a culture that doesn't know what it doesn't know about intersectionality.

For example, a community that would hear the term "malewashing" as "highly aggressive" while calling itself "feminist" has an inconsistency problem. That's like a "Civil Rights advocate" saying "Don't say "racism," it's highly aggressive and it will be off putting to this community."

And I'm just going to flip what you said to prove this point:

"If you put the black versus white bit into what should be an article commemorating women's suffrage, it waters down and weakens a historic and incredibly important thing: the realisation that female people should have the same legal rights as male people. This is too important a thing to lose."

No one says that. We just spent an entire year talking about how Black women couldn't vote after women's suffrage without fearing it would "water down" anything. I'm literally just saying the same thing about Juneteenth.

You are expressing an attitude I see across Wikipedia that inclusion as a bad thing in one context and a good thing in another. That's the definition of "intersectional inconsistency." And why this Juneteenth article is not neutral.

AmorLucis (talk) 01:12, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

It's important to be aware of what neutrality means in the context of Wikipedia policy, because that may not be precisely identical to what it means in a different context. Note the phrasing of the corresponding pillar:

“ We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. ”

Seems to me intersectionalist considerations have the potential to come into conflict with both of those points. On the one hand, when they fail to be sufficiently represented in the sources that, as determined by editor concensus, represent the "major points of view", then they arguably fall outside the proper scope of the corresponding article. Intersectionality theory is relatively young, so I'd imagine that especially in the case of matters historical, like the one in question, that's quite likely to be the case. Whether that's unfortunate is neither here nor there, ultimately. And if so, what you'd need to do is show that a minority of more modern sources that do take a more intersectionalist stance effectively supersede a majority of less modern ones. Needless to say, simply stating the opinion that they ought to do so won't cut it.

On the other hand, intersectionality is at least in some sense a maximum-inclusivity approach, and is as such at least superficially at cross-purposes with the concept of "due weight". Which is not to say that the two are incompatible, but they do need to be reconciled. Which is helped by care and effort, and hindered by a crusading stance and an assumption of bad faith.

Of course, that's merely my take on things!

- 89.183.221.153 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@AmorLucis: please take this to the talk-page and discuss it there (though I think you may do better to discuss it at Intersectionality); it's a relevant discussion. But two things need noting: (1) discussion is a two-way process with no guarantee you'll get the outcome you want, and (2) WP is not concerned with 'truth' and 'right' in an ethical, radical sense; it's concerned with reporting what others say (truthfully and accurately). If you want to improve the world, go and improve it; someone will write in a reliable source about how you've improved it, and then someone here will summarise the reliable source. When it comes to global change and new ideas, we're not the trail-blazers. We're the last to arrive on the scene... Elemimele (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

CropTool not showing up

Hello. For some reason, my CropTool won't show up when I go to try and crop an image on Commons. I tried re-installing CropTool, but the thing on the side told me I already had CropTool enabled in my preferences. What should I do? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie, hold on whilst I notify experts in image related problems. Celestina007 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Godsy, Alexis Jazz, care to chime in here? Celestina007 (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, I'm indeffed so I can't test anything properly, but CropTool does seem to load. @Paul Vaurie: do you see the "⌗ CropTool" link? Are you actually on Commons and not looking at a Commons image on Wikipedia? (compare w:File:Example en.svg and c:File:Example en.svg) Are you logged in? If you have the "⌗ CropTool" link, what happens exactly when you click it? Does [1] work for you? Which skin do you use? (check your preferences, Vector is default) Do you use the mobile site?— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 00:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: No, the issue is that I don't see the # CropTool link. Yes, I am actually on Commons and not Wikipedia. Yes, the link you put works for me. I just can't seem to see the link on the left side of the page on Commons. I think I use the Vector skin. Sometimes I use the mobile site, but very rarely. Mostly just on my laptop. Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Vaurie, using the desktop site, can you either log out or open a private window, create a new account, enable the CropTool gadget (if it isn't enabled by default, I'm not sure), go to c:File:Example.jpg (CropTool doesn't support all file formats, so look at a .jpg to be sure) and see if you get the CropTool link (should be near the "Cite this page" link)? — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Vaurie, in addition to the above, if you go to https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/File:Example.jpg (create an account if you don't already have one, use a different password from your account here) and enable CropTool in your preferences there, do you see the CropTool link there? (beware that if you actually upload a crop it would probably go to the regular Commons instead of beta) — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for all your help. I think the issue is the file format for an image I was trying to crop. I was trying to crop this. When I clicked on the example jpg, the # CropTool symbol showed up. However, when I clicked on the example svg, it didn't show up. Weird. Anways, if someone can crop the Antoine Garceran image so it displays just the face, that would be of great help. Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Vaurie, webp isn't supported. Antoine Garceran has an image now. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 01:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Paul Vaurie (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How to add content to an existing Wikipedia page?

I would like to add links to books and music pertaining to the individual the page is designed for. Please advise. 76.90.215.244 (talk) 23:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Before adding links, be sure to read and digest Wikipedia:External links. -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If it is a valid link (see previously mentioned Wikipedia:External links) or book source and relevant to an information on the page, you can just use the Cite option in the Visual editing interface. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist for specific topics / categories

Hello friends! Is it possible to customize watchlist or add a script on a user page to see recent edits in specific categories? The Projects only provide lists of pages that require attention (AfD, AfC, and so on) and I don't see such a feature on Watchlist settings. Great thanks in advance! Myuno (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Myuno: Go to the category page, then click on "related changes" in the left sidebar. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Great! This will help. Thank you once again. Myuno (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, does it work for subcategories as well? Or should the recent changes be checked separately? Myuno (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Gallery section in a page

I'm not really sure if I can put a gallery section in the page 2021 Mala earthquake. I read the MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE but I'm still unsure. I want to put the File:Jorge Chavez Airport - 2021 Mala earthquake.png file but when I try to put it in a section the image appears in the References section. Can someone fix it, or tell me if It is appropiate to put the image in a gallery section?. Atomi20 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Atomi20, I think it would best fit directly after the "Damage" section heading. Galleries are normally used for multiple images. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thanks. Do you think that the image now looks in a good position? Atomi20 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Atomi20, I fixed it with this edit. You had it right at the top of the page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Now is at the references section... Atomi20 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Atomi20, what browser or app are you using? This seems to be an issue at your end. Perhaps the Technical Village Pump could help if you ask there. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Okay, but before trying to get help there, I'm using Chromebook. Atomi20 (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I block a user?

 Sparklestern (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Become an Admin. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 16:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

You can request administrator attention, but you should first try to resolve your conflict without administrator intervention. What is the user you want to be blocked? What did they do? Anton.bersh (talk) 16:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Facepalm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Sparklestern wrote on my talk page that Sparklestern wanted to block Serols. From what I see, there is nothing that would require administrator attention right now. Sparklestern, I see that Serols reverted your edit and left a message on your talk page. I agree with Serols that your edit was not constructive. Also, I see that a number of other editors were reverting your edits as well. Wikipedia is not a forum and not a messaging platform. Article Talk pages are for discussing articles and ways to improve these articles. For example, you are welcome to improve an article Naruto, but posting Hello. I want to ask:Don't you just LOVE Naruto?!! like this is not appropriate. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link: resolution of this conflict is here Anton.bersh (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I block a user? (2nd section)

I tried but it won't work… Sparklestern (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: blocking users is a right reserved for the community-elected admins and in some (very rare) cases the Wikimedia Foundation. Out of curiosity: Who are you trying to block, and for what reason? Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern and Victor Schmidt: This exact question was asked a few minutes ago. Let's try to contain this discussion in one place. Thank you! Anton.bersh (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I have merged the two sections. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: When you say "block" do you mean you want to stop somebody from contacting you? Because on Wikipedia a "block" refers to someone being prevented from being able to edit Wikipedia entirely, and only Administrators can do that Pi (Talk to me!) 00:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pi, that was what I instantaneously thought of when I glanced through the question yesterday and not necessarily in the conventional manner the word block is used. Hello @Sparklestern, is someone making your stay here less enjoyable? It might be helpful if you could explain the context or point out to us a scenario where the person you intend to “block” has erred. Celestina007 (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007 and Pi: Please see my comment above. In short, Sparklestern has never made a single constructive content edit and a bunch of different other editors reverted all his edits as vandalism. One editor reverted this edit and left a generic courtesy message on User talk:Sparklestern. Apparently, Sparklestern deemed this message offensive. Anton.bersh (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anton.bersh, I don't know if you are aware of this, but there seems to be another discussion that was going on here, hope it helps. Justiyaya 01:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Justiyaya, I was not. Thank you for the link. Anton.bersh (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Title change?

Is there a way to change the title of a draft for Draft:David Peterson (Physician)? He is not a physician as the original poster claimed. 141.126.14.151 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requested moves. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:19, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

If you are not Autoconfirmed good luck...it makes you go in circles.2600:8807:824C:6D00:C436:2EEB:7347:ADF8 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an issue that can be dealt with if and when the article is moved to mainspace. The submission has been declined, so the issues that were raised by the declining editor need to be addressed first. Mjroots (talk) 08:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Ettiquette regarding subject matter expertise

I've had an article declined due to someone deciding it does not have enough reputable sources. I am in rural Canada, and the sources included but are not limited to several CBC articles written by different reporters over the span of several years (CBC is our national public broadcaster), The Herald (which is a news magazine that has been in print since 1940), and a page from a small but respected local book publisher. I accept that those sources may not have been recognizable to someone in another area, but doesn't that speak to a gap in their knowledge regarding local media as opposed to an issue with the sources?

I'm not sure how to navigate this as I feel that rural areas will forever be at a disadvantage since people simply don't know what local news sources are, and I want to tread the line between being polite and respectful to other editors but also advocating for the recognition of rural news media as valid and the inclusion of rural interests on Wikipedia. RoseCastle (talk) 19:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Justin Barbour ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Note: This article has been draftified twice by DMySon. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Qwerfjkl, Please check carefully whether it is moved twice or once. Check here. DMySon (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@DMySon Oops, I have a bug that duplicates pages' history. ―Qwerfjkltalk 06:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

RoseCastle. It's nothing to do with rural areas, and nobody is saying that CBC is not "reputable". There are three separate criteria for a source to count towards notability: the first is that it is reliably published; but the other two are that it be independent of the subject, and have significant coverage of the subject. I haven't looked through all your sources, but the first two, from CBC, are basically Barbour talking about himself, not independent coverage of him. Such sources may be used, but in limited ways: see primary sources. --ColinFine (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your points, but don't wish to get into the weeds with details on a particular article since I'm raising a point about the amount of sources available for rural folks and how people with no knowledge of local media can deem them unsuitable. That's why I didn't include a link myself (someone else added it), because I wanted to get insight into the larger issue. --RoseCastle (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoseCastle: What exactly is the larger issue you're trying to raise? You think Wikipedia is systemically biased against smaller topics with only local (not regional or national) coverage? I would agree and say that's by design, as we only have a certain amount of volunteer labour, a particular, limited scope and many complicating factors that we need to have pragmatic rules to combat. For instance, Verifiability—that everything needs a reliable source—is there to combat the pragmatic issue that people insert jokes, deliberately false information etc. and the only way it can be removed is if we have some process to check that content is correct (Does it have a source? No: remove it. Yes: check the source and remove it if the source doesn't say that). The rule hasn't existed for as long as Wikipedia has, and it wasn't the first rule we created. It was one that arose because of a pragmatic need for it.

Similarly, Notability—that something needs more than local attention—is needed for a whole host of pragmatic reasons that include our need to limit our pool of articles to a size we can maintain (against vandalism, good faith but unhelpful edits etc.), to maintain a good reputation/public standing for any of our articles to be useful (otherwise the readers leave), our need to avoid hoaxes and elaborate jokes that do sometimes occur, our need to avoid financial incentives driving people to create blatant adverts and sneaking edits in that hurt the encyclopedia and benefit their personal business etc.

Suggesting a limitation of Wikipedia is all very well, but what's the solution being proposed? As for this particular topic, I'm British and rarely edit Canadian topics, and I'm very familiar with the name CBC; as for The Herald, I can look up any particular large-enough newspaper called (The) Herald in 30 seconds and then generally at a glance get a good impression of what its reach and editorial standards are. If it doesn't have a Wikipedia article (that tells me what I need), I'll look at the website and get an impression from its "About Us", whether it has a corrections policy and whether the by-line is given to someone who has worked for other publications that look reliable.

As for the specific points ColinFine, you can disagree all you want but everything they have said reflects the wider community's approach and you are wasting your time and ours if you continue to try to argue for the draft on the strength of its current sourcing. It's not a waste of time, though, when you have a draft rejected or an idea doesn't work for a reason outside of your control—if you choose to learn the lessons from that and look for a part of the encyclopedia where your talents will be actively sought after. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

As I have specifically mentioned above, I’m not arguing for the particular article itself (and was not the one who linked to it) so we can set that aside as irrelevant.

The issue I was asking for advice on was when it was appropriate to push back when someone is making definitive calls on sourcing when they don’t seem to have any knowledge of the sources in the area while remaining polite. I’m not sure how or why one would feel qualified to make those calls if one wasn’t familiar with the area, but this conversation just keeps getting circumvented by commenters focusing on specific details in the article (which, as mentioned, someone else linked) and so I’m moving on. Thanks for your time.

—-RoseCastle (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@RoseCastle: If you have a disagreement with another editor about the whether a cited source meets WP:RS, then you probably should first try and resolve things with the other editor on the relevant article's talk page per WP:DR. If you try this and still are unable to resolve things, then you can try asking for broader input at WP:RSN. The WP:ONUS, however, is going to fall upon you to establish a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of using the source and at some point you may just have to be willing to accept whatever the consensus turns out to be even if you don't agree with it. The same would apply to the others involved as well in that if the general consensus is that the source is reliable and OK to use, they too would have to accept that even if they believe otherwise. Since Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project, disagreements over article content and the like are inevitable. When that happens, the best you can do is be civil, try to explain your position in terms of relevant Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and see if you're able to establish a consensus in favor of your position. As for subject matter expertise, such a thing might help you better explain your position, but it doesn't automatically mean others are going to just defer to your position as explained here. The ultimate outcome is still going to depend on whatever consensus is established. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you MarchJuly for the relevant feedback, I appreciate it. It's so unfortunate that the link was added as it has caused most replies to be in the weeds. -- RoseCastle (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I can see only CBC references which are reliable but those are not secondary and independent of the subject. Other resources which are Social Blade (Self published): a YouTube, Twitch, Twitter, & Instagram Statistics platform, YouTube(Self published): Not reliable, Flanker: a selling book platform, nfldherald.com: about his book self published, Flanker: biography of the subject self published]. Now fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.DMySon (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft article submission denied

Hi. I am currently working on an article and it was denied. The reason stated there was too much advertising language used. I was wondering if I can get a second pair of eyes and/or suggestions on how I should move forward. The only resources I have are from media outlets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:GirlTrek HaileyNOLA (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

@HaileyNOLA: Please read WP:PAID and be aware that we block all editors who undertake undisclosed paid editing. This means you! Please follow that obligatory guideline before you continue to edit Wikipedia to try to promote your clients here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes I am not a paid editor and I am not creating this article on behalf of the organization. I am writing this article - my first - because the organization is a globally recognized non-profit. However, the only source materials on the organization are media articles. So your comment doesn't really help.

Could a technical expert help out here?

Following this thread where I exposed less than ethical practices, I have been receiving several spam links to my email which I know once clicked would hack my email instantaneously, so in order to have peace of mind and ensure my account itself cannot be hackled i enabled 2FA in my preferences. please my question is if I lose my current mobile device is my account lost forever? I read about the tokens but honestly can’t make heads or tails of it, Secondly if I purchase another mobile device and reinstall FreeOTP from App Store would the OTP recognize “me” and continue its normal functions or do I have to still do anything manually? Celestina007 (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007, your account cannot be lost; if you buy a new mobile you can always log in there, as long as you know the password. I couldn't answer the FreeOTP question though; if anyone is able to please do so. GeraldWL 05:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gerald Waldo Luis, obviously, I know my account isn’t lost if I buy a new device my question makes reference to the FreeOTP. Oh well Why don’t I take this to the village pump where more technical savvy minds can be of help. Celestina007 (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: See Template:Committed identity for an alternative if you are worried about your Wikipedia account being hacked. It doesn't prevent hacking but can help you regain control. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@PrimeHunter, that’s something I’ve looking into. Thanks for bringing it up. Celestina007 (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure how it works with FreeOTP but with 2FA wouldn't you need a four digit code to log in as well as your password. If you buy a new device and you register the device under your current email then you should be able to access your account just as you are now. Theoretically it should recognize you but don't they give you back-up codes? I would keep them handy if they do. It is the other failsafe you have to access your account if something goes wrong. --ARoseWolf 14:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: There are scratch codes you get when you set up 2FA. See Help:Two-factor_authentication#Scratch_codes. Make sure you print these out and keep them in a safe place. If you lose your device, you can use a scratch code to authenticate. RudolfRed (talk) 16:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf, I think you both gave me the slam dunk answer I was looking for, if I enter my gmail the new device should be able to recognize “me” the and my “FreeOTP”, that indeed makes sense & yes @RudolfRed, I infact just printed those out now and being an archaic ancient old dinosaur that i am, I also wrote them down manually in three different books. Celestina007 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Celestina007: Never a bad idea to write them down as many times as it takes. I've never heard them called scratch codes before but that's pretty cool. I had to use 2FA for a while on other programs due to a personal issue I was going through before I came to Wikipedia but was never really fully immersed in it. It should work out. Let me know how it goes. The suspense and all that (lol). --ARoseWolf 17:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

ARoseWolf, would most definitely do, I haven’t purchased the new Apple device yet and my question was a theoretical one, I was just thinking futuristically (and the thought came into my head) like what if my phone fell into the Atlantic Ocean or Armed robbers / thugs ambush me once again as they did in the past. Prior my fight against UPE and dismantling of UPE rings in Nigeria, I innocently doxxed myself by stating my height and place of work(all of which Primefac was gracious enough to redact from my history entirely) so my thinking was that if that happened again (now that I have enabled 2FA) would my account be forever lost? But thanks to you, PrimeHunter and RudolfRed I am no longer worried as you have all spelt and explained in detail how to retrieve my account if I lose my mobile device. Celestina007 (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You can easily export your OTP secret from your old device and import it into your new device. You can even export the secret now for backup, remove it from your device, and import it later into a separate device and it will still work. Anton.bersh (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Advice needed with referencing style WP:CITESHORT

I normally use the "long referencing style" and find it much easier than the short style (WP:CITESHORT). In fact, I really struggle when I have to work with the short citation style. For the article on ecosystem it uses the short citation style but the links are missing from the notes to the sources. For example the note says "Chapin et al. (2002)" but it's not wikilinked to the "source" entry of Chapin, F. Stuart; Matson, Pamela A.; Mooney, Harold A. (2002). Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology. New York, NY: Springer New York. Could someone tell me what the easiest method is to fix that? Perhaps point me to the right page for learning how to do it? (or possibly do it for me if it's just a few mouse clicks or if there is even a bot) And in general, is the short citation style growing in usage or reducing? What are the developments? - Thanks! EMsmile (talk) 03:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

EMsmile, if this is what you're referring to, I'll use Kampoeng Rawa as an example. If you click edit source at "Works cited", notice something a "ref" parameter. So let's say, the first one is {{{{SfnRef|Suara Merdeka 2014, Berharap}}. The citeshort using that is cite 16, which is {{sfn|Suara Merdeka 2014, Berharap}}. That way it can be automatically detected and linked. GeraldWL 05:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that this is just one of the other citeshort varieties; for Chapin et al. (2002) you can see other articles using this variety and see their sfn template. Also note that it's up to you whether to use long or short cites, but an article must be consistent between them. A problem I ironically see in TFAs. GeraldWL 05:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Gerald Waldo Luis, however I am still rather confused. Could you point me to a good "how to" guide or tutorial on how to do this. Or are you saying the best way is to examine how other articles have done it? Which other article is using the same style and what did you mean by "see their sfn template"? Is Climate change using the same style, and can I somehow infer from there how it's done? It looks very complicated. EMsmile (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

COI

How do I resolve COI? Getthisdone (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC).

Hello, Getthisdone. It is simple. Disclose your conflict of interest as widely as applicable, and always gracefully defer to the assessments of experienced editors who do not have a conflict of interest. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In basic English: first, say you have a COI at your user page. Then, the next time you want to edit a page you have COI with, discuss at the talk page. See WP:COI for more info. GeraldWL 05:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Getthisdone, hello and welcome to the Teahouse, you can read WP:COIDISCLOSE, or make edits requests at the tp of the article rather than edit the article directly. Celestina007 (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Specifically, as long as it is a draft, you can edit directly, but if becomes an article, you will need to propose changes on the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Non clickable button

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Non clickable button

 – ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Username's Colors

I often see this on wikipedia, that there are some usernames which look red in color while some are blue. Is there any specific reason for that? ManaliJain (talk) 07:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

These are wiki links to user pages. Blue means that there is a user page which has been edited, and red means that the page has not been created (or has been deleted). Meters (talk) 07:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@ManaliJain: it just depends on whether that user created their user page or not. I see you created yours, for example. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, got it. @Meters: @Paul Vaurie: Thanks both of you! ManaliJain (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes in a BBC report used as a source

Hello @Talk:Oromo language a BBC source is being used to determine how many speakers a ethnic group have, the claim is that it's the fourth most spoken language in Africa. However according to a more reliable source like ethnologue, there are other African languages spoken more, both in terms of native speakers and total speakers. Hoewever a editors argues BBC report is reliable, and ethnologue doesn't rank them, even though Ethnologue does give clear figures for the different languages. Is this a reliable source issue or a content dispute issue? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. It might be both- but even if your source is considered reliable, that does not mean that the BBC should not be considered at all. You will want to discuss this matter on the article talk page to arrive at a consensus as to how to proceed. You may wish to go to the reliable sources noticeboard to see if the source you mention is considered to be reliable as well. 331dot (talk) 09:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

331dot Thanks Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria You might also want to have a read of the essay Wikipedia:Conflicting sources, which describes a couple of ways of dealing with these issues when multiple reliable sources give conflicting information. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@192.76.8.91 I couldn't find these specific kind of Wiki policies for specific issues, without searching endlessly, so thank you very much for sharing this! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Possible Error in article

Hello everyone i was editing an article for Matt James and in the Game Design Career the last line is wrong as Vorpal game info site is showing that it was established by Alex Rose but the line conveys that the company was started by Matt James and his brother so Please anyone can look upon it. And if my assumption is wrong please forgive me and let me know on the talk page. Thankyou Stobene45 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Stobene45 (talk) 11:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Stobene45, I'm afraid you didn't look into the sentence more. It says that they are "moving forward", not that they established it. GeraldWL 13:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Next level thanking

Hello how do you thank someone for edits that they get in their 'notices'. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Dawit S Gondaria, alright so let's say you wanna thank this. There you can see the word "Thank"; this can be seen in desktop, mobile and app. Click that, and when it pops "Publicly send thanks" click "Thank". Boom. GeraldWL 13:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis Nice, thanks!Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it relevant to include content about an article's actions in the article?

I found a biography article that had been vandalized with by adding false information. However, the vandalize edit is quickly reverted. Nevertheless, someone discovered a loophole and used it to republish the false information as:

"This article has been vandalized with the content of [false information] in which the editor has been charged for defamation by advertisement"

Even though it is the fact (that the article was vandalized), does this information contribute to or add to the biography of the person? Ladoce8755 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles are being vandalized or distorted all the time. The fact that wrong information was once included shouldn't be mentioned in the article except in the very rare cases that this is picked up and published in reliable sources, which can then be cited.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira One of the country's major news networks reported on the arrest of the editor who vandalized the article. And use this as a citation to the said loophole edit. Is this the case? Ladoce8755 (talk) 12:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In that case I suggest discuss it on the article talk page or take it to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Shantavira Thank you, I have another question does case like this mentioned in the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or somewhere else? Something like guidelines or suggestions for where this type of information should be placed. Ladoce8755 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ladoce8755, consider WP:PROPORTION. Sometimes there is good enough coverage for "WP on WP", but just because it's been mentioned in media doesn't mean it should be in the article, it can be considered navel-gazing. A few examples where WP is mentioned: Warsaw concentration camp, Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station and Élizabeth Teissier. But consider putting a "This article has been mentioned by a media organization:" note on the talkpage like at Talk:Kate Osborne. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

How much can we infer from sources before venturing into WP:OR

Greetings,

this is sort of a follow-up to a question asked by another editor above. I have participated in this discussion, where I argued that one could infer a ranking based on numbers in sources, without this ranking being given explicitly by the source. (Specifically it was about language speakers by Ethnologue, but this isn't important here.)

My question is: Am I correct in my assumptions?

LandLing has argued that it would not be possible, and I believe they are an experienced editor whose opinion I can't simply ignore. Thus I would like to know to what extent a Wikipedian can infer from sources without it constituting WP:OR, ideally with some links to policy so I can bookmark it.

Cheers! LordPeterII (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

GNG?

Hello. I created this draft. Does it have the possibility of meeting WP:GNG? Just curious. If not, I will use {{Db-g7}}. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Paul Vaurie, as it stands now? I think a case could be made in either direction. Possibility for notability-increasing augmentation? I quote: "More sources that I have not used yet^{[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]}" Perhaps I am an unusually lazy person, but I have more pressing concerns. You've read them; you've read WP:GNG; decide for yourself. If you decide that yes the subject does meet WP:GNG, then do your best with it and keep your fingers crossed. If you decide that it doesn't, simply abandon it and after a few months it will evaporate. -- Hoary (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

How to nominate a article for GA status ?

Hiii I want to nominate Jalgaon district article for GA status. How to do it ? Or can you do it ? If you can please proceed. Huge Earth (talk) 13:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Over the past month you have increased the length of the article by more than half, which is a good start. Nominating is simple. Once an experienced GA reviewer agrees to review the nomination, you will see a list of items that need improving. Up to you to address all of them to the satisfaction of the reviewer. Good luck. David notMD (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Kleinpecan Hiii, I tried to do as said in link you provided. But I'm not sure the article is really nominated or not. Can you nominate it by yourself.Huge Earth (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth: Jalgaon district is showing up at WP:GAN#PLACE, so I assume it has been successfully nominated. One template is enough, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:Tenryuu If it is nominated, as you said then thanks for telling me.Huge Earth (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Translation of a title

I want to make a translation of the French article Cap écologie. But the title translates to 'Ecology Cap' in machine tranlation, which I am not sure about. So should the title of my draft be Cap écologie or Ecology Cap? Excellenc1📞 13:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Excellenc1, and welcome to the Teahouse. As far as I can tell from wikt:cap#French, none of the meanings of "cap" in French translate to any English "cap". If you are translating, I guess that it would be something like "Goal Ecology", or "Direction Ecology" (which are not normal phrases in English text - one would expect "the ecology direction" - but might fit for a name). I don't think a partial translation as "Cap Ecology" is a good idea, given that "cap" is an English word, but with no appropriate meaning. I would leave the title in French, but provide a translation. --ColinFine (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Welcome to the Teahouse. The best way to determine what the article's title should be on here would be to determine what English reliable sources call it, if any; if none exist, I'd leave it as is. As ColinFine says above, the name might not make sense if it were translated and someone were looking specifically for this political party, so that's another reason why the name should stay as is. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

So as per the suggestions above, I have kept the title in French itself (I searched for English sources referring to the party, I couldn't find any). Excellenc1📞 14:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: If this helps, its predecesser organization fr:Cap21 shows that "Cap" is an acronym for "Citoyenneté, action, participation" (Citizenship, action, participation). So I think keeping the original French name makes sense here. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Fact check question

Can some regular editors guide me about checking validity of facts stated and how to fact check. IndoUniverse88 (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

(made this its own section) David notMD (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, IndoUniverse88, and welcome to the Teahouse. Very general questions like yours tend to be difficult to answer (because so much depends on specific cases), so you are much more likely to get a useful response here if you are specific: what facts are you wanting to check, in what article? --ColinFine (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

At a simple level, all factual statements require verification via reliable source references. Although not a requirement, the majority of refs are online. Rather than accepting as true, there is value in going to the ref site to confirm it does support the text of the article. David notMD (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Foreign language citation & Using Youtube as a source

I skimmed through WP:CITE and couldn't really find any specifics regarding how to cite a foreign language article; and what I mean by that is when to include the language of the article cited in the citation. I know there are certain tools that will take care of that for you, but I'm having a discussion with a new editor and his response to me saying he needs to find an English source and/or cite that the source he's using is in a foreign language was "The editors who are interested in that page will surely understand it and after all it was nothing controversial" And also in the same discussion I brought up that he cited a Youtube video, are Youtube videos considered a reliable source? The one this editor used was over an hour long, it was an interview between two people, one of them being the subject of the Wikipedia article – but there was no way to verify the claim cited in said article from the video because it was in a foreign language. So I just wanted to know if there was any guidance, policy, essay, etc. within Wikipedia that I could point this editor to and familiarize myself with. Thanks!

Edit: I did find WP:VIDEOREF and I didn't know if that was a good reference to point this editor towards. But being as said video looks like an interview, does that then delve into a copyright violation if the video is used as a source? Thoughts appreciated. Snickers2686 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snickers2686: generally you cite a foreign language reference in the same way that you would an English one, and look for any additional parameters that flag up the language e.g. in {{cite web}} there is |language= and then you can include both the original and a translated English title with |trans-title=. Foreign language sources are as acceptable as English sources, so you are not correct that this person needs to find an English source. If there is one of equivalent suitability in English then that would be preferable (e.g. when I'm searching for television reviews, I prefer Australian reviews to Greek reviews), but it's not required—take a look at WP:RSUE.

YouTube can be a perfectly fine source just as much as "books" or "internet pages" can be: it depends on who is publishing it and what their credentials are. Linking to a video is not a copyright violation but linking to a copyright violation is not allowed—you have to evaluate who owns the copyright and whether that's the YouTube channel owner in the way you would assess this with anything. Give me the context and I can look at it. If the source is a video of over an hour, you can use timestamps such as with {{cite AV media}} and provide quotations (if it's brief enough). Let me know if I missed anything! — Bilorv (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Can an image be used as a source?

As said, is a photograph considered a valid/reliable source of information for an article? And if yes, how is it best cited?

Thanks, MKH1020 (talk) 14:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No, on the grounds that a photograph cannot be in-depth. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with Jéské Couriano. A photo might conceivably be a valid and reliable source of information, just as a listing can be. But as neither is in-depth, neither can help establish notability.   Maproom (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

That would only be true if you knew the context the photo was taken in, and if you know that there's no reason to cite the photo in the first place. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 16:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't entirely agree with either of the other answerers. If the photo is published in a WP:reliable source, then it can be used to support the information which the source says it shows. So if the source says that this is a picture of X talking to Y at event Z, then it could be used to support claims such as that X met Y, or that X was present at Z, even if there is no further mention of Y or of Z in the source. --ColinFine (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Colin here. I have seen photographs be the foundational source of an entire article. It grew from there largely because we were able to expound upon and find other sources but a lot of the initial biographical information came from the caption of a photograph captured by a notable photographer and published in a reliable independent secondary source. It may be difficult to find these cases but they do exist, especially in a historical sense. --ARoseWolf 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@MKH1020: What kind of image are we talking about? Is it a photo, a scanned document or created image of a concept? I think this will change some of the response above. If it is a photo I think the thing to take from this is that we must be very careful if we are using this image as a source. It has to be abundantly clear within the image, for example if we have an image of 2 world leaders shaking hands at a world conference, we can't cite that these two world leaders are best friends. This would be a balance of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. To cite an image like this is must be verifiable so you will have to provide enough information on the source that someone else can reasonably locate and verify the information cited by the image. If it is a scanned document then it is probably just best to cite the document itself. If it is a created image of a concept and it can be released under a compatible license it should be included in the article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:38, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, many photographs from sources such as national library holdings, recognized biographical databaes and, on occasion, historical journal and newspaper articles are accompanied by detailed descriptions of the circumstances under which the photographs were taken, including the relationship of the subject with the location in question and even with the photographer. A fair number of my biographical articles contain references to such photographs, including pertinent explanations in the text of the article.--Ipigott (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi

Hi can I know how can i create a new document?  Snowflake2004 (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Snowflake2004: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's more information on creating a new article at Your first article, but keep in mind that it's one of the hardest things to do here on Wikipedia. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

propose rework of pinhole camera

Hi, members of the tea-party, I feel that in: pinhole camera, 5.selection of pinhole size the last paragraphs should be reworked. I've posted on talk page but got no reaction. Has anyone of you got a secret tool to find out, who has contributed these paragraphs? I'd prefer, that the original contributer has a look on his baby before I start to damage it ;-) Regards Lei-Fidelity Lei-Fidelity (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

There's no secret tool for that; see this. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 15:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Lei-Fidelity Or WikiBlame. ―Qwerfjkltalk 16:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Qwerfjkl SENSATIONELL!!! Danke! P.S.: The former author's user page no longer exists.Lei-Fidelity (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

New-Notability

Hi- new here so hello! I just tried to publish my first wiki here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Milam%27s_Markets and I not see that I need to put better sources aside from the company website which I will definitely do! The main comment asks, "how is this company notable outside of the Florida area?" However, I tried to do this on the basis that there are many grocery stores in the United States with Wiki pages. Some are smaller than this one, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-Rite_Market or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zupan%27s_Markets What constitutes notability when creating articles? Kristieguzman (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kristieguzman. Notability comes from significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent reliable sources. Your draft begins by saying the company operates "service oriented stores with a focus on quality and diverse product offering", and you cite that to the company's website. That's a big no-no and a red flag for reviewers. The company website can be an external link instead of a reference. The Miami Herald source is excellent and you should build the article by summarizing independent sources like that. Bi-Rite Market has coverage in the Wall Street Journal, the Atlantic, Fast Company and of course the San Francisco newspapers. The sources at Zupan's are not as strong and mostly local, but that's a start class article written 11 years ago before the Articles for Creation review article even existed. Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Also, be aware that Wikipedia has 6.3 million articles and plenty of them have a variety of problems. Saying that you found one or two mediocre articles so therefore you should be able to create another mediocre article is not a persuasive argument. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Kristieguzman, and welcome to the Teahouse. In answer to your questions: 1) there is no necessary connection between the size of an enterprise and whether or not it meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. It's true that a larger business is more likely to have been written about, and so is more likely to be notable; but that doesn't necessarily follow. Everything depends on the number and quality of the sources, not on the size, fame, importance, popularity, or any other inherent quality of the subject. 2) the articles you're pointing to might well be(I haven't checked) among the thousands and thousands of substandard articles which were created in the early days of Wikipedia, before we were as careful. If so, they ought to be improved or deleted, depending on whether their subjects do in fact meet our criteria: see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The criteria for notability of businesses are at NORG. --ColinFine (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I want to help Wikipedia

 Sparklestern (talk) 16:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Figure out what you'd like to do, or if you can't make up your mind read articles and copyedit as you go along. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 16:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sparklestern: the Task Center can help you find useful tasks, but even before that you might like to try The Wikipedia Adventure. — Bilorv (talk) 17:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

List of useful code

Hello I noticed that there was a cheat sheet listed in the help section but it didnt have what I needed. Is there like a reference sheet that has useful things like the commands for adding categories and magic words ect? ElectraInTheVoid (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@ElectraInTheVoid: The page you're talking about is Help:Cheatsheet isn't it, which is a short list of the most common wikitext markup and templates. There's a more comprehensive list of wikitext functions at Help:Wikitext, which covers just about about everything you can do. If you want a comprehensive template listing have a look at the WP:Template index which lists a huge number of templates sorted by function. Finally many common bits of wikitext markup can be inserted directly in the editing window, just above the edit summary box there's a bar with buttons you can click to insert characters into the page. If you swap the dropdown menu at the left to "Wiki markup" it will bring up a list of most of the common tags and magic words. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 01:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Moving sandbox to mainspace

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

how to move my sandbox to mainspace Craftandartindia (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Craftandartindia An editor moved your Sandbox draft to Bagru Print. However, there already exists a much longer article Bagh Print which appears to me to be about the same topic. Do you agree? If yes, you should ask to have an Administrator delete your article. David notMD (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Appears that Bagh and Bagru are entirely different villages, with no connection between them. David notMD (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD, Yes both are different print and located in different states of India. what is this, "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. (July 2021)" I can't understand this.

Eddie Mahoney

I added in the body "Eddie did more than just Sing "Vocals" he also played sax and harmonica, the piano and a little guitar. (source is his wife LM )" It was taken down for the reasons listed below and was referred to as baloney reference. . And now I reference many youtube concerts Eddie played the Saxophone and sang which is hard to do, The other instruments are covered in a Washington Post article. Please change to denote these facts and not rely on just album covers. And yes the words I stated were verbatim what Laurie Mahoney said. Any person who has gone to an Eddie Money concert knows he at the very least played the Sax. When Eddie was in the studio he might of been Vocal's which is understandable for as stated before, singing and playing the sax is taxing and Eddie would concentrate on Vocals. I am not looking to be a regular editor but, on a fan page the question was brought up, that Wikipedia listed vocals beside instrument(s). Please, will someone correct this? Also, would someone advise me how or whom the Eddie Mahoney's Estate can establish credentials can become an editor on the page. I AM Not THE ESTATE"S SPOKESPERSON. I have tried to contact the editor who deleted but I can not get it done. Furthermore does anyone see the rhyme as I do, that the editor used? https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpUgdO3lRrjzTtTEtH562agLlra5OIolTkXM9p6xiQ6DUFyIOVNaqMXNwpTrkKtWclauA&usqp=CAU google, "Eddie Money played the tenor sax" under images you will see he did,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/eddie-money-singer-behind-take-me-home-tonight-and-two-tickets-to-paradise-dies-at-70/2019/09/13/3fdc6b0c-c8e5-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eddie_Money&action=history

curprev 06:27, 14 July 2021‎ Cullen328 talk contribs‎ 26,715 bytes −130‎ Restore to version before changes before "his wife" was referenced. We need an actual reference, not some vague baloney undothank Tag: Manual revert The Money Man Fan (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am the editor who reverted your edit because what you heard from his wife is not an acceptable source because it violates the policy No original research. You can certainly use the Washington Post as a reference. However, anyone affiliated with Eddie Money's estate has a Conflict of interest that must be disclosed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the Washington Post obituary that mentions the instruments that he played is already a named reference in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Money Man Fan, hello and welcome to the Teahouse! As Cullen points out, anything added needs to be accompanied by a reliable source. Someone so close to Eddie is not considered independent. It would need to be covered in a secondary independent source. Anyone is allowed to edit but someone so close to the subject needs to disclose their conflict of interest, as pointed out, again, by Cullen, and are encouraged to use the articles Talk page in order to have anything added or removed by a non-COI editor. The same policies apply in regards to independent sources. --ARoseWolf 17:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

page creation

How do I add a page? TheCrabNebula (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

You might want to have a look through Help:Your first article. Pi (Talk to me!) 17:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

To add to this, TheCrabNebula, you might find along the way that creating a new article isn't actually what you want to do. It's one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, generally requiring the most experience. You can't just pick any topic you want—you have to find a topic that's notable, which is a property that's outside your control (it's based on whether in-depth independent reliable sources exist). When creating an article, the first step is the research process: finding the reliable sources that you will use to write the article. But you can do this on a smaller scale, without risk of your work being deleted, by finding an existing article that you can improve and expand with new references and information from those references. If you want to find a good place to start, I recommend Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure and Wikipedia:Task Center. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion

How to nominate an article for deletion? Peter Ormond 💬 18:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Peter Ormond and welcome to the Teahouse! If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult these instructions. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk. --ARoseWolf 18:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond I strongly suggest you use Wikipedia:Twinkle to do so. You get an extra drop-down menu, there you chose XFD on the page in question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Ormond: Slightly different take from the previous. Twinkle is great, and I use it myself. But I've also found that it's valuable to do at least a few deletion nominations "the hard way", as the scripts occasionally go wonky and it's good to know what to do to clean things up by hand if that happens. --Finngall ^talk 21:32, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

editing instruments

I found out how to edit instruments but, I am instructed to do this "If you think an instrument should be listed or removed, a discussion to reach consensus is needed first per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_musical_artist#instrument -->" I followed the link but it did not tell me how to start a discussion. So, I tried and do not want to do wrong and I am not coming here before trying. Also, I have no intention of editing regularly.

I do have publish resources but one resource the "Washington Post" requires an email sign up to read is that acceptable? This article lists Saxophone, harmonica, and piano, Which is as follows

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/eddie-money-singer-behind-take-me-home-tonight-and-two-tickets-to-paradise-dies-at-70/2019/09/13/3fdc6b0c-c8e5-11e9-a1fe-ca46e8d573c0_story.html?fbclid=IwAR1VURY1A50sgm0Eq-Ev9ioG__aa_HZp2pIqfeAkEs96n4MOIaeONqcPk_k

Here is one with the saxophone mentioned. It is my understanding that a reference is not needed if it is a well know fact, such as, If I edited "Jimmy Hendrix played the electric guitar."

https://www.musicrecallmagazine.com/interviews/interview-with-rocker-eddie-money/

So, how do I reach a discussion to list the instruments. I do not care if someone else does it, I look for no recognition. I would like to handle this to give Eddie's widow a small pleasure during her time of grief. Please help me to do this for Laurie. The Money Man Fan (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@The Money Man Fan You can try pinging the main contributors of the Template, by looking at its history, and ask them whether or not they disagree with you. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:25, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pretty sure OP's interest isn't to edit the template, but to edit the Eddie Money article's infobox's |instrument= value.  — sbb (talk) 19:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

If my previous comment is correct, just open a discussion on Talk:Eddie Money (click on "New Section" at the top of the page), and state your case with the cited reference(s).  — sbb (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

UEFA EURO 2020

Hello, I'm new here, but recently I noticed that UEFA EURO 2020 page is semi protected unlike other UEFA EUROs on Wikipedia. Why? 18BoldSpil89 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The log for the page gives the reason: "Persistent disruptive editing". --David Biddulph (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@18BoldSpil89: Pages are only protected when they have to be, based on (in most cases) concrete disruption that has actually happened. It should be unsurprising that UEFA Euro 2020 has had more vandalism in the last few weeks than older tournaments. You could look through the page history to see this, but you'd have to be checking the timestamps between when the page was unprotected, which you can see at this log. The protection will expire in mid-August, and only reinstated if disruption continues. — Bilorv (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Because Euro 2020 was a current event, there would have been a lot more editing on it, and likely too much disruptive editing. Far fewer people will be editing e.g. Euro 1996 than Euro 2020. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have fixed the errors in Draft:Dr R Rajammal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dr_R_Rajammal I have kept the information in an encylopaedic manner. Removed original research. please review. Manjukms (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Manjukms: Please click the Resubmit button and be patient. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse hosts are not reviewers. You removed content after the Decline, as did McMatter. Now, there are not enough references. David notMD (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Proper External Links Template

I was told some of my external link additions are not following the Wikipedia guidelines on External Links. I've reviewed those guidelines, and I don't see where I've made a mistake. Could I get examples of perfectly done external links? I've added External Links to the Mfecane page in case anyone wanted to check what I did there and give me feedback. I added links to Vickery's course and to a Forgotten Wars Podcast episode. Mbuster88 (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mbuster88: podcasts and such things are not usually good as external links. There are some things it's really hard to judge without having been around here a while, like what Wikipedia:External links means in practice, but we really take less is more to the extreme with external links (ELs). If you're adding an EL about the Second Boer War, a really large and well-known topic, the link needs to be in some way a definitive text (like, ask 100 specialists in the field and most of them would name this historian/resource), because otherwise there's hundreds of links we could add and we have to include them all, or just a few and then someone promoting their own podcast/website gets there first and has a monopoly etc.

I'm noticing that the external links already present in the article you're looking at are not pristine examples of how to do things correctly. Many of them should likely be removed. Experienced editors have pages watchlisted, so they'll notice new changes, and that's why someone might undo one of your changes without fixing the problems already there—they weren't watchlisting the page when those old external links were added, or it slipped through their radar (my watchlist has almost 2000 pages on it—I miss things and I don't have much time to spend on each change I need to undo). I would not recommend adding external links as a good task for newcomers, but I see you added a "Further reading" link or two. That can be good—new references are generally an improvement, and incorporating any information they contain into an existing article is another good newcomer task. — Bilorv (talk) 12:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Some privacy

Is it possible to assign an IP address to account? I was accidentally logged out and I don't want my IP address to be publicly visible.

Thank You! Movopro (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Movopro: goto WP:OVERSIGHT and use the link at near the top of the page there to email the oversight team. They can hide your IP address. RudolfRed (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Charles Brian O’Kelley

Hello! I'd like to ask for help from more experienced editors here. Recently, I published this article: Draft:Charles Brian O’Kelley, which was later moved back to draftspace. When I submitted the draft for review, the same editor returned the tags of notability and "fan view". I have two questions: 1) Is it justified to put the same tags from the article in the draft which is under review? 2) Do you agree with the tags in the draft? If the answer is "yes" can you, please, explain in detail here, in the draft or on my Talk Page, what are the specific issues? For example, I'm puzzled by the editor's comments that the deep coverage publications in The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Forbes Staff (plus other publications) do not qualify the person for a Wikipedia article. If this person is not notable, then I'm not even sure who can be notable. Idunnox3 (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC) 

@Idunnox3: I tend to agree with MrsSnoozyTurtle, that the article is too much about AppNexus, but it looks like others are helping you clean it up. Generally, if the majority of the bio is about the company, consensus is to put the person's info in the company article. If his new company CMDTY gets more coverage, focusing on his efforts there, that helps make the case that he's notable enough on his own. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

When a editor contradicts himself,

Hello, question about when a editor contradicts him self about a specific detail first agreeing on the talk page, but when applied to the article, user removes the sourced content, when asked about the contradiction, editor now claims there's no contradiction even though it's cleary there on the talk page, and now says the sourced content will be removed tomorrow. This is annoying behavior, is this incident noteworthy, and what policy best describe this behaviour? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 23:30, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: Please let us see the edit by linking to the article - context is everything. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I found it  Courtesy link: Talk:Oromo language § Afaan Oromo the use of a incorrect source. There's a lot to wade through, but the discussion should be kept on the talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 00:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Timtempleton Hello thanks for your answer, in that discussion it's separate from the BBC source discussion, for which i openend a case in Reliable sources.

It's about the latest edits in the same section, and it's something trivial but annoying nonetheless. ●It basically comes down to, user doesn't want a sentence(Amharic has more total speakers) in the article(in contradiction to earlier statements made by user on talk page), he now switched positions denying he contradicted himself, now saying it's too much about Amharic, when it's really one sentence. Now i will have to explain why he shouldn't revert tomorrow, honestly at this point i think user is taking advantage of my relative inexperience. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Problem found on a page; don't know how to flag it

 Courtesy link: Jenga

Please look at the page for Tenga, and then the talk page. Below is what I wrote there. (I think I forgot to sign it because it's been so long since I've needed to do that; apologies.)

I would be interested in knowing how to flag this sort of problem because rather a while ago I found a similar but more complicated situation, noted it,* but then left it alone until I'd learned how to deal with it. Hasn't been a priority but this Tenga example offers an easier case to deal with.

"Opening text for this page is problematic

The opening of this item comes directly from a commercial source: https://www.jengagiant.com/. My understanding is that that's an absolute no-no for Wikipedia entries.

Someone with more Wikipedia knowledge than I have should insert the appropriate nasty message and/or simply remove the text. I've got no idea how to fix this and the game is obviously popular.

So I am noting it but leaving it alone." Tarkiwi25 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tarkiwi25: Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you link to the exact external page that you claim is getting its content ripped onto here? I can't seem to find it at the page linked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I can't either, but as I said at Talk:Jenga, they copied the content from us, not the other way around. Graham87 06:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu 🐲 @Graham87 Thanks for your responses. Here's the link from Jenga's (the game) "About" page: https://www.jenga.com/about.php. Apologies for not getting that right to start with. Apologies as well for not seeing Graham87's entry in the Talk:Jenga page; I didn't do a thorough study of the Talk page since most of what I saw related to the game itself (which made it obvious that the game itself is of sufficient cultural interest to have a page). [OK; I've gone back to the talk page and now realize that you were responding to my post there.]

Thanks, too, for the welcome to the Teahouse, although it's been rather a while since I first approached the Teahouse for help. I try to focus on producing acceptable new pages and/or developing/improving existing pages rather than blundering around in learning new tricks that aren't directly germane to what I can already do. But this seemed like a potential opportunity to grow my knowledge of Wikipedia per se a little.

So, even if Graham87 is correct and there is no problem here, I'd still like to know how to flag such a problem* by attaching the appropriate one among the sort of notices that appear at the top of a page [for example, on the Jenga Talk page], but of the sort that object, for example, to insufficient support/development/importance/whatever within a page, or that call for more citations, ..... I don't have the nomenclature (the labels for labels) to know how to search efficiently within Wikipedia's pages of instructions to find what I'm looking for.

When I initially* said I'd found an apparently similar problem before and that I'd noted it, it was only a note to myself. I don't know how to "note" things on a page itself or anywhere else such that people looking at that page might become aware of the problem and perhaps help sort it out.

Cheers for your assistance.

Question

Does this article have a problem? TUDN (TV network) ItsJustdancefan (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@ItsJustdancefan: I'd move the carriage dispute info to history, or maybe even delete it, since it was a while ago and carriage disputes are fairly common. I'd also update the programming, if necessary, and remove the programming section flag. Otherwise, looks OK at first glance. Why do you ask? TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 02:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it has. There are unreferenced lists; all content must be referenced. On the section "Carriage disputes" (if it's necessary at all; see above), see Wikipedia:Citation overkill. -- Hoary (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Declined bio of Colin Macpherson

Hello Everyone, After waiting for a total of about nine months, I've recently had an AfC declined for a second time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Colin_Macpherson The most recent reason given was 'This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources'. I assumed this referred to a number of citations regarding reviews of the novels that CM has written. A number of these sources are not online -- being newspapers or journals that no longer exist and/or are only archived in microform. So I looked into this (the problem of 'recentism' being discussed in various Wikipedia fora) and found that providing an ISSN or OCLC within the citations -- (together with full quotations from the source) would suffice in such situations. (I have photocopies of the relevant newspaper reviews -- provided to me by CM -- so I know they are correct). So I've made these adjustments, and I'd like to get some feedback from more experienced WP editors before I consider whether to press the 'Resubmit' button or go down another path with all the work I've done. I should also mention that the WP notability requirement for this subject (CM) seems to be adequately met by his written works (particularly his novels). His music is just one of his many other endeavours-- but well worthy of mention, given that that is what he has concentrated on for the last decade or so.

I'll be really grateful for any support anyone might offer. Pomegranate Rose (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pomegranate Rose, it seems you have a conflict of interest on this topic. Yet you have not made the necessary disclosures. This can be one of the reasons that causes other editors to be disinclined to assist you or assist you speedily. So, please do so.

As for the draft, based on a brief look, it is quite obvious that the subject is definitely not a musician (or at least a musician who would merit a Wikipedia article; see WP:GARAGE, admittedly takes an effort to look past the insults and focus on the salient points). You note above that the subject is notable as an author. Yet your draft begins asserting that he's a great musician, and by the way, also an author. Don't you think that that would make the draft misleading, and therefore contrary to Wikipedia's mission?

Regarding the waiting time, when it says four months, it's an upper bound. Drafts that take that kind of waiting time are hard to review, and part of the blame is on you, the author. You have got 46 references. Yet most of the references that are easily checked are not "independent secondary reliable sources" of repute, as WP:GNG demands. When you have the first sentence on Music saying "Macpherson's music has been characterized as alternative folk, " and clicking on the citation takes you to an Apple music listing categorised as alternative folk, it's obvious that this is a promotional piece employing WP:REFBOMBING, and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia in its current form. That was just one example.

Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:48, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@☎️, you refer to WP:GARAGE and looking past the insults there in order to "focus on the salient points". Yet your response above is in much the same vein. To write that "it is quite obvious that the subject is definitely not a musician" is quite clearly an insult based on total ignorance of the subject. As soon as I read that, it made any further comments by you obviously biased (nastiness mixed with what purports to be objectivity leads to nowhere). Normally, I would be happy to discuss the issues you raise -- and many of them are clearly erroneous and worthy of debate -- but your contrary and pompous attitude make such discussion not worthy of my time. What a sad outcome. In the past, The Teahouse has been a place of respect and support.

Regards! Pomegranate Rose (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pomegranate Rose Whilst I agree that WP:GARAGE is unhelpfully blunt, your dismissal of @Usedtobecool’s advice and feedback is unwarranted. Perhaps you are too close to the subject to take it on board. I see nothing that makes this musician a NOTABLE Musician (which is what UtbC meant) and there is far too much trivial content to make finding evidence he meets WP:NMUSIC easy, even if it is there (hence the long delay in review you have experienced). So, my advice (assuming you do actually want to have our help) is to return and give us links to just ‘’three’’ sources which quickly prove how he meets either WP:NMUSIC or WP:NBIO notability criteria. If you can’t do that, your draft will never be acceptable here, no matter how much you try. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes Look, I'll pass over comments about what's warranted or unwarranted, and what someone else meant rather than what they said, etc., and just say thank you for your more professional and helpful response. And, of course I want your help -- that's why I posted my original request. Getting to the issue of notability criteria, I thought that the citations of reviews for the novels, and the citations of the sample academic papers and popular print-media articles would easily establish notability. The citations for the academic journal papers give definitive online links, as do the popular-press articles (albeit sometimes via library-membership requirements); and the novel reviews are a mix of online and off-line sources (the off-line sources being an issue I mentioned in my initial post: you cannot expect reviews from twenty years ago in newspapers and magazines to all be easily available online -- but they are accessible, and they should be considered just as significant as more-recent online material). There are far more than three sources in the 'Literary works' section of the draft article that clearly establish CM's notability WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC, some may be 'quicker' than others as evidence but that's just the nature of the sources -- all the information is there, however. I would be grateful if you would scan these to confirm notability at least, and then advise whether I should perhaps substantially alter the article so that the 'Literary works' lead the piece, with a lesser mention of the music at the end. Thanks.

Pomegranate Rose (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns about notability. His music appears to be self-released, and 2 of his 3 fiction books were self-published (Mopoke Publishing). On the books, the draft content reads like book jacket blurbs. Remove all the quotes. The refs can remain, even those not available online. Still unresolved is the question of whether you have a COI, meaning a personal connection to Colin. If true, state that on your User page. If not, state that on your Talk page. His website should not be a ref (currently #3 and #6). I know yo uhave been working on this for almost a year, and the review delays have been annoying. David notMD (talk) 10:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Pomegranate Rose, you also need to remove any editorialising from the draft, per MOS:EDITORIAL. For example, it currently includes the line, "with the research behind the story being credible enough for the book to be used in a course on 'dark information' at a leading US university", sourced to an information page about that course. There are several problems with this, including the fact that the source doesn't tell us why the story has been included (so "being credible enough" is your editorialising) and that "leading US university" is subjective. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I

@David notMD Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure why you mention self-release of music and self-publication of books. Long gone are the days when these forms of publication were considered inferior -- much of the modern music industry centres on indie artists who are unsigned, and many, many highly-successful authors have self-published (including CM). But leaving that aside, I appreciate your suggestion about removing the quotes in the book descriptions. I purposely formatted the descriptions this way because I didn't want to appear to be editorializing. Do you mean I should just use my own words to describe the books but keep the words in line with the refs? The COI suggestion is annoying but I appreciate your advice in that regard. And I'll take on board your suggestion of not using links to CM's website (although citing autobiographical material seems to be no different from citing from biographical works that are based on information that comes directly from the subject.) Thank you for your advice and your time -- and especially your friendly and helpful tone.Pomegranate Rose (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry Thanks for your advice about instances of editorializing: I take your point and will address it -- just leaving the facts. As with the previous three editors, I appreciate your support and professionalism.Pomegranate Rose (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD Sorry for bothering you again, but I've just found that you inserted a signed 'Comment' at the top of the draft-CM article we've been discussing. I'm not sure why you did this without even waiting for me to respond here to your concerns, but regardless, shouldn't such a comment be in the article's 'Talk' page rather than in the body of the actual draft?...I've not seen this before, and it certainly messes up the draft. Also, regarding the actual comment, please consider what I've already said about that issue -- it really shouldn't be a concern these days. If I could, I'd move the comment to the Talk area -- where I think it should be -- but I don't know how to do that -- and I'd prefer to not simply delete it. I'd appreciate your help in this regard. In a number of ways, it seems that my initial request for advice is turning into a bit of a nightmare. I didn't think my dedication as a fan would be so draining. Pomegranate Rose (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pomegranate Rose Comments in drafts are common, to help editors and reviewers. ―Qwerfjkltalk 06:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Queries at Teahouse can lead to information being discovered that a reviewer would not be aware of when considering a submitted draft. As Qwefjkl stated, Comments are common at drafts, either by a reviewer who declined the draft, or other editors. Self-publishing books and music albums is a relative but not absolute weakness when considering notability. The fact that Macpherson's books received favorable reviews is a positive. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

On a separate note, I see that on your Talk page you have declared you are not being paid or otherwise compensated for work on this draft. You need to also address WP:COI. David notMD (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

How do I use a copyrighted logo?

I am making a draft on a political party and I want to put its logo in the infobox. (My draft here, the image here). But the logo is copyrighted, so where do I get the permission to use the logo? Excellenc1📞 03:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: Per the non-free content policy, copyrighted images cannot be used in the draft space, so it can only be put in once it becomes an actual article. After that happens, you can upload the logo as a non-free file via the file upload wizard and then put it into the article. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Saucy: Actually the draft I have created is on an article which already exists in English Cap Écologie. The reason why I couldn't find that is because the article was previosly named Cap Ecology (I recently moved it to Cap Écologie). Can you please delete my draft or something? Can I get help? Excellenc1📞 04:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: You can put {{Db-userreq}} at the top of your draft and an admin will delete it for you. RudolfRed (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I tried to help using Twinkle not realizing the MfD option didn't give me the option for speedy deletion, and only created an AfD nomination. Sorry for any extra work I added for the admins. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the purpose of births by year and deaths by year categories?

What is the purpose of Category:Births by year and Category:Deaths by year and their subcategories? 50.30.176.26 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

They're there to note people who are born or died in a specific year. Is there an issue you're seeing with these categories? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

No I was asking what benefit they have. 50.30.176.26 (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

To quote from Wikipedia:Categorization: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." In other words, suppose you know a limited number of facts about someone including their year of birth (and maybe their profession or nationality etc), you could use the category system to narrow down their identity.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

COI Editing

Hi Teahouse! I haven't been on Wikipedia in a while but I wanted to jump back in quickly to ask a question. A company has recently approached me to help them build their Wikipedia page. I am still researching them to see if they would pass the notability guideline, but for future reference, how should this be properly disclosed assuming I think they pass the notability guideline? I've read WP:COI and understandably, COI editing seems to be frowned upon in the community. If I am getting paid to create an article that I think passes the guideline, should I submit the draft for publication and mention it in the talk page or the article's draft itself? Any help here would be much appreciated as I would really like the money, but I don't want to break policy. Thank you! MirzaTheGreatest (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@MirzaTheGreatest: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you are writing an article on behalf of a company, you will need to disclose the paid relationship on your user page ({{paid}} is a template that you can use). You can mention that you are doing this for pay on the draft's talk page to cover your bases, but understand that if it gets accepted into mainspace, you are strongly recommended to suggest further changes in the form of edit requests at the article's talk page.
With all that said, does the company understand that Wikipedia is not a venue to promote themselves? You should probably make them aware that they have no control over an article about them, and that having an article isn't necessarily a good thing. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

MirzaTheGreatest I'm curious as to how this company came to approach you; I assume they didn't just ask you off the street. In any event, any article that might exist about this company will not belong to the company; it won't be "their Wikipedia page", but a Wikipedia article about them. They will have no special rights to it(less actually, as they would need to make edit requests just as you will if accepted) and cannot prevent others from editing it. Any information about the company, good or bad, can be in an article about them. See WP:PROUD. 331dot (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

A note: IF you manage to create a draft, submit that to AfC, and it is accepted, from that point in time onward, neither you nor anyone from the company would be allowed to further edit the article. Instead, you (and they) would be restricted to proposing changes on the Talk page of the article, for non-connected editors to either incorporate into the article, or decline. David notMD (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help regarding Formal Tone

Hello, I would like some assistance for my Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jolyon_Petch. I need help to rephrase it into a neutral formal tone.

Thank you! Ainamera22 (talk) 08:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Creating article that is currently a redirect

Let me know if this is unclear––

Someone made an article for L'Rain, the self-titled album by an artist/curator whose music is released under the name L'Rain. Unfortunately, they named the article itself "L'Rain" rather than disambiguating it as an album title, and there is not currently an article for the artist; I moved the album article to L'Rain (album), but L'Rain is now a redirect to that (album) page.

I've drafted an article for L'Rain here, but I don't know how to create a new article on the page of a redirect.

[Edit: I originally also asked, "Should I publish this draft as "Taja Cheek" (given name) or "L'Rain" (professional name)?" but just reviewed her highest-profile features (in the New York Times, Teen Vogue, NPR, Pitchfork, & Bandcamp) & they *all* identify her as "L'Rain", so it seems clear that should be the article title––"L'Rain" & "Cheek" can then be used interchangeably in the article, as with those other outlets, & the top of the page can say, "for the album, see L'Rain (album)".]

Thanks! Knifegames (talk) 11:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Knifegames: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'd keep working on the draft as it is right now. Add {{subst:submit}} when you're done, and don't worry about titles at this point in time: a reviewer will be the one to determine which title the draft gets moved to if it gets approved. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 13:29, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tenryuu––I actually just needed to know how to create an article on the page of an unnecessary redirect, but I figured it out. :) I've published the L'Rain article, created a new talk page on *that* redirect, & have updated all internal links; let me know if you can think of anything else I should check! Knifegames (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Information I added has been deleted

I recently added some information to a band's page - Night Beats. It included lots of information about new releases, plus did more of a timeline of the band's career. Citations were added for everything, yet a user has gone in and deleted everything I did. How do I go about reinstating it? They have put nothing as to why they deleted all the extra information. CherryUK73 (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Afternoon, Cherry. your concerns have been addressed on the talk page of the band concerned, citing your apparent Conflict of interests. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Working

Hi, I added Working (Terkel book) to

For the 2019 book by Robert Caro, see Working (Caro book).

(and vice-versa) but it was removed due to WP:NOTAMB, is there not confusion if the reader cannot remember the author? (just a thought!) GrahamHardy (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd suggest placing the hatnote For other uses, see Working. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:44, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @GrahamHardy, WP:NOTAMB says that a hatnote is not needed. The idea is that "(Terkel book)" or other disambiguating terms make it clear that the disambiguation page is at another location. I.e., you wouldn't end up on "Terkel book" by accident since even Working (book) goes straight to the dab. czar 00:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

So is the consensus that I remove the hatnote? GrahamHardy (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Article lengths (biographies)

Hello everyone. I've been editing here for a few weeks and am enjoying making a contribution. I was wondering whether there are any guidelines for biographical article lengths (word counts)? I guess it's mainly is dictated by the importance of the subject but I wanted to know whether - for consistency - there was some mean to aim towards? For instance there's massive variability between Giles Milton and Matthew Sturgis who are British writers of similar standing. Cheers! SnowballWT (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SnowballWT, and welcome to the Teahouse. Not so much open the "importance" of the subject as on the amount of independent reliable information available about them. There will be some correlation with their importance, but it is not a simple relationship: some minor topics happen to have lots of information available, while some famous or popular subjects have very little. As you surmise, there is no particular minimum or maximum word count; and even where there is plenty of information available, it is an editorial decision (determined in the end by consensus) how much of it should be included. --ColinFine (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello ColinFine (in Ripon!). This clarifies it very well. There's a fluidity to Wikipedia which takes a little getting used to but I'll try to keep this in mind. Thank you for the reasoned answer. Really appreciated. SnowballWT (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Citations about draft

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

I am proud of the draft Draft:Sandy King (Producer) who is accomplished, has had a massive impact on not only the movie industry, but American culture, has great peer reviews, and definitely adds value to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that all her accomplishments are independent of her massively famous husband, John Carpenter. However it seems the moderator just wants to argue about citations - which are adequate IMO. I am asking for another opinion as King is worthy - and given NPR's recent story of inclusion of women on Wikipedia, it seems more relevant than ever to include accomplished women who are well known and have proven themselves. Thank you for your input.SugarHiller (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC) SugarHiller (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, SugarHiller, and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is unlike almost any other resource on the web: it is an encyclopedia, which relies wholly on independent sources. The criteria for acceptability of a subject are somewhat unfortunately named as "notability" - unfortunately because they have no direct connection with accomplishment or importance: they come down mostly to "are there reliable independent published sources which say enough about the subject to ground an article?". Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost exclusively 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. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

As far as I can see, not a single one of your sources contains significant material about King that does not come from her. Therefore, none of them count in any way towards establishing that she meets the criteria of notability. Unfortunately, this is quite often the case for producers.

I observe that you twice describe her as "known". While this is less egregious than some phrases that inexperienced editors put into drafts, it is still an evaluative claim that must not be made in Wikipedia's voice. If you can find an independent source that talks about her that way, then you can quote it explicitly (with citation); but otherwise, no.

By the way, Wikipedia does not have "moderators": Theroadislong is a volunteer editor like you and me, who happens to have volunteered to be an article reviewer. --ColinFine (talk)

Thank you for the feedback. Yet it seems to me that this is all caught up in semantics about a 'word' here and a 'nomenclature' there...not about substance of the subject. But ok, let me change a couple words and look for some more citations - of which there are tons. Just seems to me that there is a blatant disregard for comments about her accomplishments and the meeting of the BLP criteria. Thanks againSugarHiller (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

User:SugarHiller has been blocked for sockpuppetry and the draft deleted. Theroadislong (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

new article entitled "a 128-Hz tuning fork"

I have completed a draft using ms words. Could I upload the draft for review?Bihchi (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC) Bihchi (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bihchi: Welcome to the Teahouse. You can go to Your first article for more information, where you can follow the Articles for Creation process to have it reviewed. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

a project with less notability rules

is there a more relaxed notability and retracted rules version of wikipedia? bi (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Welcome to the Teahouse. You could try other wikis like TV Tropes or FANDOM wikis, though they tend to be more narrow in scope. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

There are thousands of wikis. You might be interested in Wikipedia:Directory of alternative outlets.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

• great directory thanks bi (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Can I use this image in my article?

Can I use La France audacieuse logo.png in La France Audacieuse? Excellenc1📞 16:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Excellenc1: That image was uplaoded locally to the french Wikipedia, so no, at least not immedately. On any given Wikimedia Project, you can only embed images uploaded locally or to Wikimedia Commons. I can't tell wether it would be acceptable to upload it locally here because I don't speak french. Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Logos can often be uploaded (direct to English Wikipedia, not to Commons), Excellence1 and used as non-free content in articles. See further LOGOS. --ColinFine (talk) 17:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Promotional vs non-promotional references?

How to Fit a Prong Collar". leerburg.com. Retrieved 2021-02-13. 20 "Prong Collar For Dogs Everything You Need to Know! Mcbzen (talk) 17:07, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mcbzen: Welcome to the Teahouse. What is your question? You seem to be getting reverted at Dog collar for advertising. Please make sure that the sources you're using are reliable. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:12, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes I'm trying to understand how references 18, 20, 21, and 22 are non-promotional, while trying to reference a blog post on how to properly fit a regular collar is flagged as promotional. What am I doing that's different that those references? How do I properly cite this post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcbzen (talk • contribs)

@Mcbzen: You're going need to convince other editors watching the page that the blog post is reliable, which by virtue of it being a blog, almost certainly fails. If you have a conflict of interest (as you also appear to be uploading images from the blog-associated site), please declare it, and refrain from editing the article directly. You may leave edit requests at Talk:Dog collar. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:27, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mcbzen, I have removed several promotional links to sales sites from that article. Spam is not allowed on Wikipedia, and it is a never ending struggle to keep it out. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Submitting a draft of article

I have just drafted a proposed article. I would like to submit a draft of this article that is in Microsoft word for consideration. Can I download a word document and input it into your system? Orangecholo (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Orangecholo Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I don't know about a direct upload, but you could copy and paste the text; you will want to use Articles for creation to submit a draft. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Orangecholo, click on this link and you will arrive at your "sandbox". Paste the text there. Click on "Publish" (which will save it, not publish it in the normal sense). Format it, and follow the advice at Help:Your first article. "Publish" (save) again. -- Hoary (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

But I'm afraid, Orangecholo, that if you wrote your draft without being aware of the advice in your first article, it's likely that you will need to more or less start again. It's like building a house without building the foundations first, or even surveying the ground to check that it is stable enough to build on. --ColinFine (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

How to add a picture

 Umjita (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Umjita: Welcome to the Teahouse. There are instructions that you can read here, but have a look at the image use policy to make sure that the image is appropriate for Wikipedia's purpose, or it will be deleted. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Format used in the paragraph Weblinks

I wanted to change a broken link and felt not sure how to do it. Mainly I saw, the lines start with the lin ddirectly.

Is there a common format, so it looks informativ? Can the shown text be different from the link, that means shorter?

Thanks Ha pe11 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ha pe11 Hi, the normal method for linking to other pages within the English Wikipedia is [[Page you want to link to|Displayed text]], which would produce Displayed text. These links are blue if they page exists, and red otherwise. External links are produced like this: [https://www.example.com Displayed text], producing Displayed text. Please see Help:Linking. If the link you are talking about is red, it is not necessarily broken; see Wikipedia:Redlink. ―Qwerfjkltalk 19:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Celebrity

Can I become a celebrity being an editor or writter on Wikipedia

 41.114.199.100 (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure who would confer celebrity upon you for your Wikipedia editing or why that would be a consideration. I guess it's not impossible, Jimbo Wales is pretty famous, but others being like him are unlikely, and certainly not without years of work. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll let you know in a couple of years.

Serious answer: No, not really. A few Wikipedians have been interviewed by the press, and a few celebrities edit Wikipedia, but a couple of press interviews will not make you famous, and those celebrities we have are all famous for other things. If you're looking for fame, YouTube would be a better route, or possibly being funny on social media. I've got a ridiculous number of followers on Reddit, and that all comes from me making stupid jokes in the comments section, though I'm not sure that would really qualify as "celebrity", more just "popular". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Almost certainly not. I can't think of anyone who has achieved anything approaching celebrity status for the work they've done here. I can think of two or three who have attracted a very modest level of press interest, not for what they've done, but for getting controversially banned from editing here. Maproom (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Maproom & MPants at work, ummm I beg to differ, Hello @41.114.199.100, and welcome to the Teahouse, I take your question as “can I become renowned both on and off Wikipedia as a prolific Wikipedia editor”? Correct me if I am wrong, but if I’m interpreting your question correctly, then that would be a yes, if you are consciously trying to achieve that then that’s very much possible. Editors with WP:EVC perm who are consistently coordinating events are to a certain degree “local celebrities”, Other approaches include you even calling for paid press interviews all of which I would advise against because i, in my own capacity consider fame to be trifling and irrelevant. I’m sorry for the unsolicited advice, but that however is my philosophical stance on whatever it is that’s constitutes “Fame”. Celestina007 (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you do, in fact, have a different interpretation of "celebrity", as I doubt anyone who isn't involved in editing WP or a student at a school where an EVC works would know the name of an EVC. To be honest, I couldn't tell you the name or account name of any EVC's, and I'm 20k edits into this project.

That's not to say that you're wrong, but it's a very different type of fame than what most people would mean when they refer to celebrity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:18, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@MPants at work, true, I don’t think I know what happens at EVC, probably inappropriate of me to even bring that up seeing as I do not know what happens there, I do not edit areas where my identity has the potential to be exposed. What my thought process is or was is like this; if an editor with EVC organizes a real life event and Wikipedians come to listen to the coordinator teach, they probably bring along family or friends, I’d assume one who does that one too many times would be somewhat of a local celebrity. I however still believe achieving “fame” (even though i believe fame to be trifling) is possible via editing here, i could show you a diff or two of editors here creating paid publications, but private details are involved(outing and whatnot) so back to the question; can one achieve fame through editing here I think this answers the question. Can it be replicated? Maybe, maybe not, but I feel A “yes”(one can achieve fame via editing here) would have to be the blanket answer here because there’s proof of it. This is however my interpretation of what fame is, This conversation has been intellectually stimulating. Celestina007 (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

First, learn how to spell "writer". David notMD (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding biography of an artist

How to add an artist' biography ABLN2012 (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@ABLN2012 hello and welcome to the Teahouse, could you be so kind as to expatiate? are you trying to create a biographical article for an artist? an artist per se or a biographical article on a musician? Celestina007 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ABLN2012 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Successfully writing a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. It takes much time and effort. It is advised that you first edit existing articles in areas that interest you, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. Using the new user tutorial also helps. Creating an article without this experience is risky.

A Wikipedia article about an artist must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about them, showing how they meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable artist(or a notable musician if that's what you mean). If you have at least three such sources, you may attempt to create a draft at Articles for Creation. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

And if the artist is yourself, ABLN2012 (as is suggested by your user page) then the answer is, please don't. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, because it is so difficult to forget everything you know about yourself and write a neutral summary of what indepdendent sources have said about you. Also note that an article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. --ColinFine (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Please delete what you have on your User page, as that is not a place to draft an article. David notMD (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Huggle

Everyone out there from the Teahouse. I am just wondering that... is that safe for an computer or laptop to use Huggle for anti-vandalism work? ----Rdp060707|talk 02:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rdp060707: If you have concerns, you can ask at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback RudolfRed (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

AfD

How do I do an AfD? Sennagod (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My article with brief biography was deleted, Why was that done>

Next discussion : #I want my article to be removed from speedily deleted category

My article about Deepak Sood with brief biography was deleted, this article is about the Indian Government body people who is famous and a lot of people search about him, He has dedicated a lot of his time in the improvement of Indian Economy and helped many Indian Government Institutions and sectors. Ronitsunny 04:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ronitsunny If you meant Draft:Deepak Sood, according to the logs, it was deleted due to WP:G11. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Basically, the draft was deleted because it contained unambiguous promotion and advertising language. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Weird font for foreign language

Revisiting Kasuri, I note that the Japanese language words are now shown in a larger font/typeface. My perception is that although the individual words are larger, the chosen font makes them lighter in "color" (grey vs black) and more difficult to read.

Any ideas about what's going on here? I don't recall seeing other non-English words appear in this manner in other articles. Usually, articles feature a consistent font. The examples shown here for foreign words don't have this appearance. I tried using the recommended MOS:FOREIGNITALIC markup to substitute, but saw no change in the preview. Perhaps it reads differently on different devices? I've never seen this before. Thanks. Tribe of Tiger ^{Let's Purrfect!} 04:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Tribe of Tiger. Using the desktop site on Chrome running on a fairly new Android smartphone, everything looks perfectly normal to me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

As an example, Template:Transl in that article is {{transl|ja|tate-yoko gasuri}}, which Mediawiki converts into HTML <i lang="ja-Latn" title="Japanese-language romanization">Tate-yoko gasuri</i>. You should check what your particular browser does with lang="ja-Latn". It's also imaginable that it does something to the font where there's a "tooltip" (HTML title). -- Hoary (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Information forum

Hi, I just want to ask about this. I saw pretty negative content. However, I don't know how to replace it because I can't find the correct information. Is there are any forums for you to discuss informations on Wikipedia? If there are, please send me the link. H0MARUP (talk) 05:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, H0MARUP. Please mention the specific article so that experienced editors can look at that particular article. For finding high quality references, try the Reference desks. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

https://vi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeon_So-min That. The second sentence means: Jeon So-min (singer) (born 1996), Korean F-class actress, the actor with the least-watched movie in Korea. You might not know Vietnamese, so please tell me the name of that movie, and I will edit the page.Cullen328 H0MARUP (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)H0MARUP

H0MARUP, that is Vietnamese Wikipedia and this is English Wikipedia. They are separate projects with entirely separate administration. You will have to raise your concerns there, not here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for telling me that... I will tell the admins there then.H0MARUP (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)H0MARUP Cullen328

Draft:Moon Taeil

Hi, can you rewrite my draft? I want it to be accepted. Moontaeils (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Moontaeils, I see that Draft:Moon Tae-il is by you. Your username and his name have a remarkable resemblance. Is this an autobiography? -- Hoary (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

No, it is not an autobiography. I am a fan, a supporter of the subject. I am writing an article to give more recognition to him while still being neutral. Moontaeils (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Moontaeils: Welcome to the Teahouse. If you're not writing about yourself, you should abandon this account and start a new one, as your account would contravene Wikipedia's username policy. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Golygu ar declyn symudol Golygiad gwe symudol

The above has been appearing in edsums on my watchlist all morning, various editors. Isn't this the english language wikipedia? What does it mean? Is W?F doing something odd, or rather more odd than usual? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 05:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC).

According to your friend Google Translate, it means Editing on a mobile device Mobile web editing in Welsh. I know no more than that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Roxy the dog: Are you using en-gb as your interface language, by any chance? This is a noted issue (T286679) and should be resolved soon (hopefully). There's a discussion over at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Tags in Welsh that talks about the issue. Temporary solution is to change your interface language to en (Sauce). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant! Thanks for that pointer, Tenryuu, I didn't have my prefs set to en-gb, for some reason, but having changed them, I get the Welsh edit summaries as well. (I understand it is annoying to most non-Welsh speakers, but for this non-Welsh speaker it is a feature rather than a bug.) --bonadea contributions talk 08:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Newyddion rhyfeddol! When do we get also Kernewek?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It's official: the Welsh are setting their plans of world domination into action. Pretty soon every city in the world will have names like Llanfairpwllgwyngyll. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol. "Bring it dude!!" Pah! just wait until the Maoris get here! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I want my article to be removed from speedily deleted category

Previous discussion : #My article with brief biography was deleted, Why was that done>

previously there were errors to this page and content was not as per the community guidelines but now I have disclosed a COI and have added a connected contributor, now the article is simple and brief information about Mr. Deepak Sood with reliable sources.

Please guide me more as am not receiving a reply from chat. Ronitsunny 07:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ronitsunny: welcome to the Teahouse, and thank you for declaring your connection to the topic you were writing about. I think this is what happened: the page Draft:Deepak Sood was deleted about eight hours ago, as unambiguous advertising. You created a new page, which contained only a "connected contributor" template, and then you removed that template again, leaving the page empty. Another editor then tagged it for speedy deletion because you had removed all the text from the page. In most cases, a page's creator should not remove the speedy deletion template, but in this particular case it would be OK for you to do so, if you intend to add sourced information about the person. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Foreign language source

On Mao Anying an edit I made a few months ago was deleted, with the reason that it 'non English language source. cannot be verified'. The source I added was http://news.sina.com.cn/c/sd/2010-11-11/103121453469.shtml , which disputed his death as resulting from cooking rice. BLP doesn't apply, a number of other sources on the page are also in Chinese and the source is not deprecated so I can't tell why it was reverted What should I do here? Gorden 2211 (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gorden 2211: I can't see any reason why the sourced information (and the source) should have been removed, but the best thing to do is probably to ask the editor who removed it, on their user talk page. From the edit summary, it looks like the only issue they had with the source was that it isn't in English. While sources in other languages are allowed (and often necessary), many editors are not aware of this, and maybe it is just a matter of making the other editor aware of WP:NONENG. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 08:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Auto-confirmation of account

Why has my account not been auto confirmed yet? I've made close to a dozen edits now. I've given proper references for each edit and justification in its summary. My account has also existed for quite some days at this point. So when will it get auto confirmed?

Can someone please guide me? Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Somethingsomeoneqwerty: welcome back. Your user rights log shows your account as being autoconfirmed. Why do you believe that it isn't? --bonadea contributions talk 08:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Bonadea: I'm sorry. I didn't realise that. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia. BTW why are some accounts shown in blue, and some in red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somethingsomeoneqwerty (talk • contribs)

@Somethingsomeoneqwerty: The red link in your username simply means you have not created a user page yet. You may click on it to create a userpage, with content in keeping with the user page guidelines. There is no requirement that a user create a user page, many users never create one.

331dot (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

BibTeX

Hey. Is there a tool / service for converting a bibtex entry to a wikipedia reference? I looked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_tools but couldn't find anything suitable. Thanks Lukemarris (talk) 08:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

May I create an article about my proprietary software?

Hello,

I created a software, it is ready, but not yet released, it is in pre-order state. I started a describing web site for it and made a public movie about its features. May I create an objective article about my proprietary software which refers to this publicly available web page and movie content? (The site is: https://BencsikRoland.hu/english/organizer -- please delete this comment, if not allowed.)

Thank you, Roland BencsikRoland (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@BencsikRoland Please read WP:NSOFTWARE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 08:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Longer answer: You should never create or edit an article if you have a conflict of interest in regard to the subject. To have an article you have be "notable" in the sense that wikipedia understands that term. You can not determine that. It has to be determined by others. --Bduke (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Content at Teahouse is not deleted. However, content is archived on a regular basis, so that anyone perusing recent Teahouse entries will not see the older stuff (albeit, still accessible by visiting the archives). Searches within Wikipedia or external (Google, etc.) do not 'see' Teahouse commentary. David notMD (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --BencsikRoland (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please reconsider the publication of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Continuous_Innovation_Framework

Dear Robert,

I received notice that you declined my proposed article for the Continuous Innovation Framework. I would like to ask you to reconsider, as I believe that the article's references do meet the criteria of significant, reliable and secondary (see below). In addition, I would like to point that the subject is non-commercial, and published in open source. Also, in line with your remarks, I have made changes to what may have been construed as 'commercial' or 'self-promoting' content about training.

I do believe that the publication has significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, for the following reasons

I feel that this coverage qualifies as significant: through the coverage it reaches the vast majority of the relevant industry experts and practitioners and it covers a broad range of publications, such as scientific publications, conferences, communities and published media.

I feel that the sources meet the criteria of being published, reliable and secondary sources: the sources are published and reliable in the sense that they are all long lasting, professional publications. They are secondary in the sense that they discuss the subject from an independent perspective and analyse its value against other options in the market (Portman), analyse its usability in practice (Consultancy.org) and argue its value for the market segment of SME's (InnovateGO).

There are several of such publications mentioned in the article. None of these were paid for or in any other way commercially influenced.

- A scientific study by H.M. Portman, describing and positioning the framework alongside other frameworks. The author H.M. Portman is fully independent from COIN or its founders and they have never met or communicated - An interview with a corporate staff member of a Ducth company that has implemented the COIN framework. The interview was executed and published by global publisher 'Consultancy.org', written and published independently from COIN or its founders - An article published by a Dutch government agency, InnovateGO, about their application of the COIN framework in a government program. The article was written and published without knowledge by and independently from COIN or its founders - An interview with COIN founder Arent van 't Spijker at a global community of practice 'The Innovation Cafe', which is independent from COIN and which happened at the request of the community. - An interview with COIN fonder Arent van 't Spijker on a global public webcast 'Invincible Innovation' by industry expert Adi Mazor Kario, at the request of mrs. Mazor Kario. - A post-conference publication on the COIN Framework (unpaid, unsollicited) from the Innov8rs Unconference, the world's largest conference on corporate innovation. Published without prior knowledge and independently from COIN or its founders. - An article on the SWICH method, written by COIN founders on request, published in the industry-leading independent, non-commercial publication 'InnovationManagement.se'.

I do hope you want to reconsider publishing the article on Wikipedia, as I believe it will help people to find their way to non-commercial, open-source content that is already being used by thousands of innovation practitioners across the globe every month.

Thank you very much,

Arent van 't Spijker Arentvantspijker (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello Arentvantspijker, this is Wikipedia Teahouse where you can discuss general topics about Wikipedia with the whole Wikipedia community. If you want to talk to Robert McClenon, I recommend you go directly to User talk:Robert McClenon. I looked over the draft you wrote Draft:Continuous Innovation Framework and I agree with rejection for publiction (Robert McClenon provided sound and ample explanation for rejection, as did multiple other reviewers before). Courtesy pong for @Robert McClenon:. Anton.bersh (talk) 10:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Arentvantspijker. You say above I believe it will help people to find their way to non-commercial, open-source content that is already being used by thousands of innovation practitioners across the globe every month. That is called promotion, and is fundamentally contrary to the purposes of Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please also note, Arentvantspijker, that the draft has only been declined. This means the reviewer(s) judged that it is not yet suitable for Article status, but has the potential to become suitable if the problems described are successfully addressed.

If reviewers think that, at least for the present (see WP:Toosoon), an acceptable article about a particular subject probably cannot be created for other reasons, they instead reject the draft (and may in some circumstances delete it), meaning one should not waste one's own and their time by persisting with it (or trying to re-create it). This is not the case here, so you are welcome to try to improve the draft. I suggest you leave it alone for a couple of weeks (it won't be deleted for "abandonment" until 6 months of inactivity), then come back with a fresh eye, mindful of the requirement for a Neutral Point of View. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.31 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I will comment that the author resubmitted the draft with only very minor changes within hours after I declined it. That isn't usually useful, and in this case User:Theroadislong promptly declined it again, and put a conflict of interest tag on it. I will also ask User:Arentvantspijker what their affiliation is with the framework. I will also say that if the author had posted such a lengthy advertisement for the draft on my talk page, I would have said that it was a lengthy advertisement for the draft. I thank User:ColinFine for being concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding & changing disputed facts with no citation

Why is it not possible to change facts without proper references, but sometimes it is possible to add new content without a reference?

I ask because on the Heineken page it states the the founder of the original Heineken Brewery got the money from his wealthy mother, however there is no citation or evidence to prove this.

How did this get approved in the first place and can it be changed without overriding evidence? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 10:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Occasionalpedestrian Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. That some particular content is on an article does not necessarily mean that it was approved by someone. Given the nature of Wikipedia almost anyone can add anything to almost any article. I'll note that the content you mention is marked as needing citation- this is done to give people the chance to find and add a citation. If those markings have been there for some time without anyone finding a citation, you can remove the information outright. 331dot (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@331dot Thank you for your comment. What would you say counts as some time? Weeks or months? I have a conflict of interest with Heineken which is why I know it is a disputed fact. Would someone else be able to change that or could I make that change even with COI? Occasionalpedestrian (talk) 10:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Occasionalpedestrian If you have a conflict of interest with Heineken, you will need to declare that on your user page per the conflict of interest policy. If you are employed by Heineken in any capacity, you will also need to declare as a paid editor per the paid editing policy. In your position, I would make a formal edit request(click for instructions) on Talk:Heineken requesting that the information be removed. If you have a independent reliable source (nothing from the company itself) with correct information, that could replace the incorrect information- but even if you don't have that, the uncited information can be removed. 331dot (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. It was added five years ago (2016 edit found with WikiBlame) I think that's a long enough wait. - X201 (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at a newly created article

Changdeva Temple , I created today, I need a native speaker take a look it for grammer and tone. If something wrong you found, fix it. Huge Earth (talk) 11:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It was moved to Draft:Changdeva Temple minutes after your last edit, with a comment that it is not yet of article-quality. Among other problems, the refs are all just URLs. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've had a look at the grammar and writing; I hope I haven't messed up the meaning of anything (do change things back if needed; I do not know the local geography and may have made mistakes in interpreting your text). I'm not going to attempt to do the references as I can't judge which are likely to be deemed reliable secondary sources. But I personally liked the article and thought it interesting and well-balanced. If you can sort out the references so they show the newspaper/site etc. from which they're derived, then maybe it will be a good addition to WP. Good luck! Elemimele (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hiii,fellow editors, I added some best references; for my edits from newspaper website's articles. I think anyone can go and verify source of information. I think you can move it to main space. If any improvement is needed, I'll try to do it and you can edit this article for its betterment.Huge Earth (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele and Elemimele: @David notMD and David notMD: someone moved Changdeva Temple Arti from main space. Will you move it to main space.

STATUS: An experienced editor/reviewer moved it to draft, several editors and the creating editor worked to improve it, and then the editor/reviewer returned it to main space. Congrats on going from creation to approved in one day. For this, and the other articles you have created, please learn how to properly reference rather than just bare URLs. David notMD (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth:, just a hint from a non-teahouse-host! The easiest way to do references is to use the tool in the editor. I use the non-visual editor, so that's the only one I can describe. The top line has the Bold B, Italic I etc. icons, and at the far right end, the word "Cite". When "Cite" is selected, as it is by default, the next row says "Templates, Named references, Error check" If you click on Templates, it offers you a choice of four reference-citation styles. Pick whichever seems most suitable, and a little window will pop up with boxes where you can type all the relevant details. Fill in as many as you can (don't worry that not all boxes are relevant to all references) and the tool will do the work for you. Congratulations on getting this article accepted into main-space! Elemimele (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Huge Earth @Elemimele I also find Citoid helps. ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@User:Elemimele Thankyou for information sir.Huge Earth (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Roofit.solar draft re-submitted

Hello My draft Roofit Solar was declined once and the comments were that some more sources needed to be provided. I did so and resubmitted it. However, now some other reviewer wrote that it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. How is that possible that the first reviewer did not see that copyright issue but the second one saw it? I am really confused. Tea Mariamidze (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Tea Mariamidze! Issues like insufficient sourcing are easier to spot right away than plagiarism, so they'll typically be noticed earlier in the review process. Either way, you need to fix that, as plagiarism is a huge problem. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 12:23, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Your confusion surprises me, Tea Mariamidze. In my own everyday life, it's common that somebody I'm with notices something that I don't notice, and on occasion I notice something that nobody else notices. Anyway, who noticed it, and when, is a trivial matter. What does matter is that Bogger warned about copyright violation and that you haven't subsequently reedited Draft:Roofit Solar Energy to remove this material. Or are you saying that no, there is no copyright violation? -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I just need more explanation of where the copyright problem is as I am willing to fix the flaws.Tea Mariamidze (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The following text is copied directly from the Roofit Solar website "Roofit.solar got EUR 378,423,36 (without VAT) grant under the NUTIKAS project aimed to investigate the degradation mechanism in chosen polymeric encapsulants used in the photovoltaic industry. The implementation period of the project is 1.05.2020-31.08.2022 and it is supported by the Estonian Research Council and the Archimedes Foundation." Delete all of that. You could state that Roofit Solar received a grant via the NUTIKAS project, but even that needs a ref other than the Roofit Solar website. David notMD (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy: Draft:Roofit Solar Energy. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yet again, an editor directly contradicts the source, presents his own belief as the status quo and claims that his beliefs were not found in the source because of someone's motivated reasoning (i.e. myself)

Yet again, an editor directly contradicts the source, presents his own belief as the status quo and claims that his beliefs were not found in the source because of someone's motivated reasoning (i.e. myself)

It's high time that a veteran editor on Islam steps in and sorts out the mess in the article Iblis. Kindly check the edit history to understand why.

}} Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 12:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please discuss the point of contention at Talk:Iblis and don't argue through edit summaries while reverting; edit warring is not beneficial to either party. If you're unable to come to an agreement, you may want to check out some of the venues for dispute resolution. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 12:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: I was hoping that an experienced editor would be able to understand and take hold of the situation. Appreciate the tips! - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 14:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sultan.abdullah.hindi: You could try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Islam to see if any interested editors are willing to chip in. I don't know how active they are, though. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: and @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Appreciate the tip! I'll try talking to the editors of those projects. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

You and VenusFeuerFalle have each edited on many article related to Islam. The proper place to have a discussion is on the Iblis Talk page. Please be patient with each other, as I am willing to believe that you are both editing in good faith. From looking at VFF's Talk page history, I saw that the status of Iblis has been discussed (heatedly) in the past. David notMD (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@David notMD: I will move this there, in shaa ALLAH ta-'ala. And that's an extremely important point that you've raised actually. This difference of opinions among scholars and academics is exactly the reason why Dajjal is a VERY good example of what an article should be like. It totally clarifies the sect-relevant beliefs instead of convoluting everything together and presenting the different opinions A, B and C as D in one paragraph prioritizing one scholar over the other. Why I mention this 'prioritization' is because the other editor clearly states in his user page that he BELIEVES that in Islam, Iblis is an angel and this is actually reflected in the article itself as well. :( - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)User:Sultan.abdullah.hindi, I don't know anything about this, but let's see... your first edit was to remove File:Encounter_by_Candlelight_(with_black_man).jpg on grounds (I gather) that since he can't be seen by humans how can we have a picture of him, or else that anyway the people who made the picture don't have standing to say what Iblis looks like.

But we aren't saying "Iblis looked like this". I mean, of course not: he doesn't look like anything, he's made up. We're just saying "Here's a picture that somebody made of Iblis". That's all. (And that the picture if from a historically/culturaly significant source so it's worth showing.)

(As to the "made up" part, sorry, and doubly sorry if I hurt your feelings, but we're a secular Enlightenment entity and we can't trim our sails to spare anyone's feelings. It doesn't mean we don't describe all kinds of things about Islam and Islamic culture with respect and attention to various subtleties, or that we don't respect the beliefs of Wikipedians like yourself, or that we're going to be in people's faces about our secularism, just that we're not going to take religious documents such as those saying Iblis is real) on faith (since we don't anything on faith).)

I didn't explore beyond that first edit, but since that first one was probably wrong by our standards, you might want to meet people halfway and consider that you might be wrong about other stuff too. Not that you are (I haven't checked), but that you might be. That'd be a attitude of humility which might be a good start to working things with other editors on the article talk page. Good luck and happy wiki'ing! Herostratus (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I mean, this is a wholly different philosophical discussion and me being a radical skeptic at one point would argue that you can't really prove anything at all and it's all about believing and stuff but that's not really a path I want this conversation to take. Moving on to the main point of the discussion, I would really encourage going beyond that edit because while I did remove the image, I also said that it should rather be placed in a different section on that matter (of the depiction of the said entity in "Islamic" art) so as to represent the beliefs of different sects properly and of course, to be considerate and respectful of them. Of course, I have made mistakes and my mistakes have been reverted by other editors - from which I have moved on trying to be better at this but yeah, basically what I said before. Kindly check the reply to David NotMD above to understand my position a bit better. Appreciate the tips. - Sulṭān ʿAbdullāh al-Hindi ^Talk 15:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

re "I also said that it should rather be placed in a different section on that matter", oops my bad, I just went by that edit summary (yes it was very shallow view). I believe that the general agreement in academic philosophy is that some things probably exist, altho I suppose we can't be sure. Herostratus (talk) 20:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Here is a point I want to interfer: Where did I said this things (for example I hold Iblis to be an angel)? This is not my personal opinnion but this reflects both Muslim sources as well as the academic studies of Islam. The sources are given within the very article, I once extented about this subject massivly. If there is any bias, I appreciate any support to remove them, but please not by twisting context, ignoring the sources or blaming me for things I have not done! Regarding the images, we can disagree about if "Arts" can be called "Islamic" or not, depending to whom we give more weight; the Muslim jurisprudence (who usually agree that images are forbidden) or the experience of Muslims themselves (who obviously have not hesitated to make images nevertheless, but not statues. There are also angels in Art, not only Siyah Kalam's demons). For this debate I would recommand you to read Shahab Ahmed's "What is Islam?", before heading into a pointless discussion biased by personal preferences, to have common ground. He pretty much adresses this issue. I actually feel kind of assaulted by the claim "Yet again" and "the users personal beliefs are reflected in the article", which is not true. I do my hardest to harmonize contradicting statements and always consult further sources, which analyzed these issues. You are always welcome for criticism but please do not state or imply something about me what I did not. Regarding the rest of the text, I agree with @Herostratus: the place of images is something for the IslamProject itself. Otherwise, I would just go with the sources. Details can always explained by the image description. No one claims, for example, that iconographic representations are "real" images of devils, demons, angels or the like.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Edit: I added a list of quotes, which I used to verify my edits, when @Siltan.abdullah.hindi: claimed, I would contradict the sources. They might point out exactly there I am supposed to be wrong about, on the talkpage. Also note, it can take some time until I respond, I am still quite busy.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Citations when Subject is both Subject of a case study and Author of a case study

I cited a Harvard Business Review case study about Carol Fishman Cohen, authored by Myra M Hart, Robin J. Ely, and Susan Wojewoda (2003). Carol Fishman Cohen then authored a Harvard Business Review case study titled 'The 40-Year-Old-Intern' in 2012 that is also relevant to my topic.

Right now, I have the study about Cohen as a 'Further Reading' item and the study by Cohen as a citation but I could really use both studies as citations.

Is it acceptable to cite both the study 'about' and a study authored 'by' the same subject? Thank you. --Tchula65 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Tchula65 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Draft:Returnshp.   Maproom (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wayne_Doba

C I have submitted a page and the reason for refusal was " There were also no references added since last decline other than a reference to a Wikipedia article which can never be used as a reliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)" I do not understand why CNMall41 wrote this. There are no references to Wikipedia and I added 6 new citations with links to online newspaper articles. Thanks for any help you can give me. Carol CarolSusanHalls (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@CarolSusanHalls: I am pretty sure CNMall41 refers to ref #5, which is just a link to another Wikipedia article, as well as ref #9, which is a link pointing to the edit link of this very draft. See WP:CIRCULAR for more info. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, CarolSusanHalls. Your current "reference" #5 is a link to the Wikipedia article The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, a film that Doba was not part of. Why is that even mentioned? Your SFGate reference #9 links back to your draft, not to SFGate. I read several of the Seattle Times articles, and they just mention Doba briefly. As does the other SFGate article by Philip Elwood at #15. Which are your three best sources that devote significant coverage to Doba and not just to projects that he has been involved with? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Cullen328:, @Victor Schmidt:, @CarolSusanHalls:, I apologize as I looked at this closer which is the difference between the previous decline (prior to mine) and the resubmitted. There were references added but they are from Wikipedia, IMDb, TV Guide, and TCM. None of them show notability of the topic however. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Atomated robot

This automated robot removed all my content and reports it as "vandalism" tho I am just adding traditional dishes  Franco tradisionele disse (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Franco tradisionele disse Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The bots detect your edits as vandalism because they appear to just be adding random information even though that is not your intention. Part of the problem is that most of the dishes you are adding to the list do not have articles associated with them or some other citation. The lists like that are not for adding every possible member of the list, just those with articles. 331dot (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Franco tradisionele disse, in one case, you mentioned Amarula, an alcoholic beverage which has an article, but did not link to it. There is also an article about Sclerocarya birrea, known as the Marula tree. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Franco tradisionele disse another "clue" that could trigger Cluebot is that none of your additions included a reference to a source. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Where you typed "version straks", maybe you meant "venison steaks"? Maproom (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Oof

Colleagues, most of what you said is correct, but the new editor was mistreated by being called a vandal or possible vandal, and if a human being had done that she would have been scolded. Robots do not a get a special pass to insult.

I think that's main point we want to bring forward to be as welcoming as possible.

Hello User:Franco tradisionele disse. Yes you have been poorly used. Were I you, I would be distressed and angry, and properly so. Your contributions were 'NOT vandalism, and it was an egregious insult for anyone to say that, robot or person.

OK, so let's talk about what happened. User:ClueBot NG is a robot, and generally a very good one. In this instance it went out of control. I have not seen this before, and I am worried. So this is not a typical ClueBot interaction.

Let me also say that your edits were fine. They were quite acceptable for a brand new editor, and thank you, and welcome to the Wikipedia! Please understand that this is huge and fast-moving website and people (and robots!) are trying their best to be as welcoming as possible, but there's lots to do and we can't always take as much time as we'd like for each individual case. Our apologies.

So, regarding ClueBot. I will report the error, but it won't do any good. ClueBot is not really under human control anymore. Nobody can really go in and tweak the code to "fix" it. It's a (specialized) artificial intelligence. Once created, and after a certain amount of human-assisted tweaking I suppose, it was told to go and teach itself what is or not vandalism. The original creators themselves don't know exactly why it does things anymore and can't change it. That is what they told me.

OK. My point so far is that your edits should not have been characterized as vandalism.

Now, as to the actual contents of your edits. First of all, (attention [[User:331dot) they were not "random information". There exists a section called "Typical South African foods and dishes" which consists of a bulleted list of scores of dishes. Most have links to articles but many do not. User:Franco tradisionele disse added a few more bullets of the same kind of dishes in the same format. This is what we want editors to do: add useful information to the Wikipedia.

Colleagues, reasonable people can disagree whether that information is actually useful (I think it is), and whether the list should be trimmed, or made longer, or deleted altogether, or moved to its own article, or kept as is but with further additions discouraged, or the text trimmed, or turned into prose, or whatever. I think it's fine, but reasonable people may disagree, and maybe they can get it deleted. And fine. NOT fine: keeping it (thus implying that it's fine and may be added to), but then rolling back new additions on slim grounds and, especially, calling the person a vandal, or maybe a vandal.

Now, User:Franco tradisionele disse, your contributions were fine but not perfect. (I mean of course they aren't, since you are brand new.) They didn't have attached sources, which are supposed to be required (altho unfortunatly millions of statements here don't). Wikipedia:Reliable sources explains this in some detail. User:Dodger67 is correct about that. But if it was me, I would have probably just tagged them with "citation needed" since 1) they are probably true, and 2) they are not really key points like the date of the Franco-Prussian war or whatever, and 3) obtainable sources probably exist, and 4)the material is brand new, so let's give it a little time for somebody (maybe you, maybe not) to come along and add sources.

But it wasn't me. It was robot violating the First Law of Robotics, assuming that "injure" includes "insult".

User:Maproom, getting one world wrong (possibly an autocorrect, venison->version) and then misspelling a single word by a single letter is grounds for a correction being made, not the entire entire contribution rolled back and the contributor called a vandal.

Herostratus: I made several constructive changes to one of the items Franco tradisionele disse had added to the article. He has thanked me for them. I have rolled nothing back, and called no-one a vandal. But I was not confident of my understanding of "version straks", particularly in a context that includes "Amarula" and "roosterkoek", so I mentioned it here in the hope that he would read this thread and correct it. But I forgot to ping him. I have done so now. Maproom (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

[[User:Cullen328, you wrote "in one case, you mentioned Amarula, an alcoholic beverage which has an article, but did not link to it". Well how the heck is a brand new user supposed to know that's useful, and there are millions of terms here that have articles that aren't linked to, and I've never heard that linking is required (in fact overlinking is our main problem), or that not doing is is grounds for reverting edits (rather than adding the link yourself or just moving on), let alone saying they are vandalism. That it's a robot rather than a human is no excuse whatsoever, and if the robot isn't able to handle that the robot -- not User:Franco tradisionele disse -- needs to be scolded. If the robot is going to continue in this direction it needs to be turned off and looked at under the hood.

User:Franco tradisionele disse, I'll look at some of your edits and be back presently. Herostratus (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus I didn't say the information was random, I said it appeared to be random. And I certainly understand that the user is new, which is why I explained that lists typically list existing articles. Perhaps I could have added "or the prospect of being an article" 331dot (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:331dot does it really look random to you? It's additions to a list in similar format to the list. You could call it trivial I suppose, but 1) that's way different from random, and 2) only if the other items (or anyway the non-bluelinked items) on the list are also trivial, which how is an editor supposed to know that since they haven't been removed. Accept the edits then being a process to trim the list equitably. Herostratus (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, not to me, to the bot. 331dot (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

User:331dot, right, the bot. I love ClueBot, it is almost always spot on, like 99%+ percent of the time. The one or two missteps I've seen are reverting bad edits which definitely should have been reverted but weren't actually vandalism. (I'm going to suggest it change "vandalism" to "unacceptable edit" or something, that would solve most of the rare problems). But in this one case what it did, if it was a human, would have made me complain to her.

So, I don't think we should even be looking like we are defending the bot in this case, is my point. It's liable to chase this promising new editor away.

I get that we're all super busy. I don't work the teahouse much, and many thanks to those who do this critical task, but when I drop in for an occasional visit I usually pick one thread and dig into it (as here) and write a lot. That's how I roll, but I get it that if everyone did that we wouldn't be able to handle the volume. So, looking at it a bit more, I deduced that (IMO, but pretty sure I'm right) that the user deserved an apology in this unusual case. Herostratus (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Herostratus, the message that ClueBot left at Franco tradisionele disse's talk page does not use the word vandalism or any synonym. It is not rude and openly acknowledges that there are a small number of false positives. Franco tradisionele disse must have clicked a link to learn that it is an anti-vandalism bot and construed that they were being accused of vandalism. I believe that their use of the word "mosbeskuit" triggered the bot. This is an Afrikaans language word and its only use on English Wikipedia is in Franco tradisionele disse's restored edit. A quick Google search shows the word used in Afrikaans articles and websites but no easily findable English language sources. As for your claim that overlinking is a problem, perhaps that is true but not in this case. We have a genuine problem with people adding inappropriate entries to lists. It is a major problem, for example, in alumni lists where the names of non-notable people are added constantly, and a reasonable and common solution is to remove all entries that are not blue links. In this particular case, a good solution may be to allow list entries that are blue links or where a reference to a reliable source had been furnished. I also agree that citation needed tags are better than deleting plausible new good faith content, and most of Franco tradisionele disse's recent edits still stand. We do not want vandals to clog up this list with "rat fried in petroleum" rendered in Afrikaans or Zulu or any other such phony content. Also worth noting is that Franco tradisionele disse is conversing with Dodger67, an administrator who is fluent in Afrikaans. So, the situation is not nearly as dire as you portray Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please edit this template

In this template, is it possible to replace the name Haute-Normandie to Upper Normandy? Or just add this link to it? Excellenc1📞 16:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Excellenc1, you can edit the template by clicking at the "E" in the upper-left corner of the template. You can yourself replace and edit the template. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 16:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Lightbluerain, I have added the link. Excellenc1📞 03:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Please see this page and rectify the errors

Please see this page and rectify the errors. I have all the reference links, please get them from me wherever it is required. Munna Singh is a very famous Bhojpuri singer. I don't know how to add this page to a proper Wikipedia page. Please correct it. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munna_Singh_(Bhojpuri_Singer) Chandan.kaushik (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Without having access to the sources, we can't tell which source should be cited in support of which statement. You'll have to do that yourself. Maproom (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My Article is Reading More like an Advertisement

Previous discussion : Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1116#Source suggestions

Hello!

I am writing about Penn State's College of Nursing due to it's importance to future nursing students and the greater medical community. One issue I am running in to is that the article is getting declined because it reads more like an advertisement. Because I work closely with the college, I'm not sure if I am unintentionally adding any sort of biased language! I am gathering most of my information from Penn State sources, but that is simply because those sources give the most detail about the program itself, therefore allowing me to write a more complete and accurate article. Does anyone have any suggestions for ways to avoid using this language, areas I can edit, or any other advice? Here is my article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Pennsylvania_State_University_College_of_Nursing Thank you so so much! Annalisemara (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Annalisemara: Before you start getting into the details of the program, a more glaring concern is that the draft isn't cited correctly; you're going to want to see Nick Moyes' easier referencing for beginners for how to do that.
If you're writing about this subject because of it's [sic] importance to future nursing students and the greater medical community, you're going to have an incredibly hard time keeping the writing neutral. A thing that jumps out to me as ad copy is talking about people and then listing their credentials right afterward. There shouldn't be a need to do that, as that makes it sound like you're persuading others about how wonderful the program is, which is not Wikipedia's purpose. As I have hinted it before in the previous discussion, try and find sources not connected to Penn State, because those sources have a better chance of being independent from the subject, and thus better reliable sources.
Reading your reason as to why you're creating this draft, please disclose your conflict of interest; there are details on how to do so here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Annalisemara: It's easy to get burned by overeager deletionists - I quit proposing anything because of that. I would suggest that, since it has a new name, Ross and Carol Nese College of Nursing, a start class article could be created with https://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/article252814728.html as a reference. Let others work on your concept of an article on this tough to enroll in school. To an extent, it's possible to use Wikipedia as a PR vehicle, but it is cheating to do that. Start a new draft containing very little content. - 66.102.220.134 (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with what IP 66 (not a Teahouse host) recommended. However, you MUST first address the query about PAID and COI on your Talk page. Neither preclude your creating an article, but if either true clearly state that on your User page. David notMD (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Notable persons, but very few in English sources as of yet? Agegnehu Teshager

Greetings! I have a question in general about notable people who don't have a lot of coverage in English sources, can i for example use Amharic sources to create articles instead? I thought about creating a article about Agegnehu Teshager the regional president of a Ethiopian region, who has been getting in the Ethiopian news a lot recently, but there are still very few English sources about him. Can i use Amharic sources? Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC) Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dawit S Gondaria: You can use reliable sources that are not in English, though if there's an equivalent English source, the latter will be preferred (as WP:NONENG describes). Issues may arise if the sources' verifiability is called into question and not many editors are familiar with the language, but that's another issue. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu Okay thanks! Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Draft sounds like advertisement

FYI

 – Heading added by Tenryuu.

Hello, can someone please review my page (Richmond Triangle Players) and tell me what about it makes it seem like and "advertisement" per the reviewers who have rejected my submission? Think804 (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Think804. Your draft contains entirely unreferenced promotional language like, Richmond Triangle Players was created initially as a haven for gay and lesbian actors and artists to produce work. Its audiences at the time were made up of Richmond’s community and others interested in the material. As early as its first full season, its programming was noted by the local press, and the theatre soon began to be discovered by the community at large. It is the only professional theatre company in Central Virginia and the longest continually operating one in the Mid-Atlantic region which regularly serves the LGBTQ+ community. Evaluative language like that needs to be referenced to reliable independent sources. There are other examples of unreferenced promotional language as well. The entire section about the history of the Pink triangle is superfluous since there is already a well-developed article on that topic that any interested person can read. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, your draft has not been rejected, Think804. It has just not been accepted at this time, and that is an important distinction. If you pay close attention to the core content policies Neutral point of view and Verifiability and No original research, and edit accordingly, I think your draft will be accepted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

My article submission is failed

Hello, I'm new editor here. I created a article here but it's declined. I added so many independent source. Why it's declined? anyone say me? here is my wikipedia draft. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shovon_Ahmed Baghdas3 (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Holy citation overkill! —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 18:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Baghdas3: I can't read Bengali, but the English sources there do not appear to demonstrate notability. This is the info that was left when the draft was declined. The English sources except for one seem to be brief fan profiles. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Welsh tags

Why have some edit tags started appearing in Welsh on the English Wikipedia? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Rwy'n dychmygu ei fod yn rhyw fath o nam? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Jéské Couriano} 19:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Murgatroyd49. It is a known error that is related to a language selection issue. It is being discussed in several places and people with technical skills are working to resolve it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:11, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's not helpful, @Jéské Couriano.

@Murgatroyd49: Please see WP:VPT#Tags; chances are you've set your interface language to en-gb. It's being worked on, but you should change your interface language to en for the time being. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Murgatroyd49 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Where is the "interface language" setting? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman under "Preferences" and "User Profile", if you scroll down you will see "Internationalisation". Under that is Language with a drop down box. You can choose your language preference from there. --ARoseWolf 19:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

TYVM, I swear I searched every line of every tab and somehow managed to miss that. "None so blind as those who will not see". I guess was expecting to see Cymraeg or similar. Dwi'n gochi nawr --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, Oh, you blush easily too? (lol) --ARoseWolf 20:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Links working strangely

Here, wikilinks are displaying as external links, probably because of the /. Example:[[//U//'e language]]produces [language]. Any idea how to fix this? ―Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: Insert a semicolon at the start of the link, e.g [[://U//'e language]] produces //U//'e language. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

That's a colon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Correct, seems I made a typo. Not sure how I got that wrong. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Making an article public

Hello! I managed to move my article into Wikipedia's live space but it is not discoverable on Google. How can an article be found on Google? What are other further changes needed? Thank you! Sângeorzan Adrian (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Google indexing is not instantaneous. You need to declare your WP:COI. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Sângeorzan Adrian It was inadvisable for you to move the draft yourself; it failed one review at AFC. I strongly advise you to move it back for further work and an independent review. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

An article is indexed by searchengines after it has been ok:d by a New Page Reviewer, or a certain time has passed, I think it was 90 days. Adrian Sangeorzan largely lacks inline citations, that's bad, especially for a WP:BLP, and you need to remove the WP:EL:s from the article text. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Sângeorzan Adrian never moved the draft to mainspace. It exists at Draft:Sangeorzan Adrian. Also, when instructed to remove external hyperlinks, removed refs - which I restored. DEclined once. Some sections have no references. David notMD (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

David notMD It's at Adrian Sangeorzan. 331dot (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all so much. I will remove the external links. But how do I declare my WP:COI? And about the sections which have no references, what do I need to do about that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sângeorzan Adrian (talk • contribs)

@Sângeorzan Adrian: You can declare your conflict of interest a couple of ways, all of which are listed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Kilaparti Ramakrishna

FYI

 – This has been asked at the help desk. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Can someone please finish the Wikipedia page on Dr. Kilaparti Ramakrishna? I created it but am not sure how to finish it, add an image, or publish it. I submitted it for review, but not sure if it went through. Thank you! RameshR.18.3200 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@RameshR.18.3200: Welcome to the Teahouse. Please ask either here or at the Help Desk. You have already received an answer at the latter. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

SATURDAY HERALD

Do you plan to reduce the size?? 122.60.182.64 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse. Could you please clarify your question? We don't seem to have an article for Saturday Herald. Is this about editing or using Wikipedia? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page for a pianist.

Hello, I would like to create a Wikipedia page for my piano teacher to thanks her for her hard work, but I don't know how I have to start. So I would be grateful if you can help me to create a Wikipedia page for her.

Her biography and her Instagram page links are below:

https://yaldasamadi.com/biography/

https://www.instagram.com/yalda_samadii/

Many thanks for your help, Amir Amirkm82 (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Amirkm82: Welcome to the Teahouse. You're going to want to read Your first article, but seeing as you're her student, you should disclose your conflict of interest, and understand that Samadi has to be notable by Wikipedia's standards. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:40, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page for Ojayy Wright.

 Courtesy link: Draft:Ojayy Wright

Hi Teahouse, I'm not new editor in wikipedia. I need your support to publish Ojayy Wright article, He is a popular person in Nigeria and some bilingual country as Cameroon. There are many press which talk about Ojayy Wright. Please, let us take a look on this article to manage as well its publication. Thank you.

 Bile rene (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Teahouse volunteers are here to answer questions about how to edit Wikipedia, but are not here to be co-authors. David notMD (talk) 04:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like to specify the page number in Google Books

 Courtesy link: Function of several complex variables § Levi problem (ref.57 ISBN 9784431568513.)

I need p.109 for reference, and I noticed that the preview is available in Google Books. but I don't know how to link. (How to link directly to page 109.) Thank you for your help. SilverMatsu (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: It seems you already have the reference info inputted correctly. You could add the {{rp}} template right after the reference to denote a page number. I unfortunately am not aware of how to link to an anchor to page 109 of the book on Google Books. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tenryuu: Thank you for teaching me. I added {{rp}}.--SilverMatsu (talk) 05:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@SilverMatsu: Google Books directly supports this ... first, display the page through Goole Books, click on the "3-dots" and select "share". It will display, or you can click "copy" for it to copy to your paste buffer. For instance, this link should take you directly to page 109. Fabrickator (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Treemap upload

Hi, I am new here. I was to update treemap of Brazil exports on Economy_of_Brazil#Exports (currently it is showing 2012 treemap which is way out-of-date). Please guide me regarding this, can I just copy the license used in 2012 image and upload 2019 treemap as I am using same source (https://oec.world/en/profile/country/bra). Thank you. Droogenbroeck (talk) 01:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User Talk Christopher Shay

"The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven). Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you." And "But only immerse the source material and not as an essay" Source material? Does this mean that Wikipedia does not want my original observations about Beethoven? Christopher Shay (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC) Christopher Shay (talk) 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Shay, that is exactly right. We are not looking for subject matter experts to share their original research here. "OR" is anathema, because this is only a crowd-sourced encyclopedia. We only state what is found in reliable sources, so that all donated content is verifiable. If we had to individually vet every contribution, Wikipedia would be much more limited than it is today.--Quisqualis (talk) 01:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Need admin to create page for "Mach-Hommy"

Need admin to create page for "Mach-Hommy" Learningtakessteps (talk) 05:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)