Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1036

Archive 1030

←

Archive 1034

Archive 1035

Archive 1036

Archive 1037

Archive 1038

→

Archive 1040

Is this encyclopaedic?

I am working on the draft Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation). However, I am not sure whether putting in some "examples" (demonstrations) is encyclopaedic. If it isn't, I am going to delete it. Thanks. 數神 (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 數神. Wikipedia already has articles Markoff number and Diophantine equation. Is this a separate topic, and is there really a need for a separate article? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Cullen328 yes it is a quite separate topic, and in my opnion a reasonable one for an article, althoguh not a vital one. But I agree that the draft by 數神 lacks suficient context to explain the topic to anyone not already familure with number theory on a moderatly high level, at least. The Markov constant in this connectiuon is quite different from Markoff number, and Diophantine equations are a very broad topic -- perhaps a third of number theoy deals with Diophantine equations in some form. Markov had multiple noted discoveriesd and his name is attached to quite a few, much like [[Leonhard Euler|Euler}}.

Examples can be encyclopedic in such toics, in my view, as long as they are clear and not over-long compaed to the rest of the article. But I think the issue of wider context is more urgent. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your insight, DESiegel. I have never claimed to be well-versed in any type of advanced mathematics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Well - I'll just wait and see what does the reviewer say. At least it is improved :) 數神 (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Published Article

Hi,

I'm unsure if my article is under review and i would like to know if I did it correctly.

Thanks,

Brooks BArrios — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarr43 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Bbarr43. I assume that you are talking about South Louisiana Coastal Erosion. I am not sure what you mean by "under review". You added it directly to the encylopedia. If you wanted a formal review, you could have submitted it through the optional Articles for creation process. Currently, the article lacks a lead section, so I suggest that you add one. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Bbarr43, you had quite a good start to it. I did some work to get it more encyclopedic in tone and bring it in line with the formatting we do, and can try to put together a short lead for it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Such a big help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbarr43 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I've put together a brief introduction and added some citations that were missing. Let me know if there is anything else i can do.Bbarr43 (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Brooks BArrios

I added a satellite image from Commons, did some text revision and removed the tags. David notMD (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft moved to main space

Hello, My Draft Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2 was moved to article space The Voice Nigeria (Season 2)
But I don't understand something because the draft page still shows that review is pending Pls I need to be enlightened Thank youTaymeedeeray (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft was not moved to mainspace. The article The Voice Nigeria (Season 2) was created there by another editor. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

David Biddulph, it looks like the article was copy-pasted from the draft without attribution. That seems very wrong. Can we deleted the article as copyvio and let AfC decide the fate of the draft? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 18:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

That would seem very wrong, but it couldn't be a copyvio exactly. Content on Wikipedia, including drafts, is free for reuse with or without modifcation. I also don't see that it's a copy-paste. The content looks quite different and there's bound to be some overlap given that both versions will be modeled on the articles for previous seaons. › Mortee _talk 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Mortee, both are relatively new users. The draft got to the present state over hundreds of edits, the article got there in five, duplicates content to the punctuation and cites. In the "Top 32" subsection, two citations have dropped to the beginning of the second paragraph, even that is duplicated in the article. I stopped comparing there.

And, it is a problem. There was no mention of copy-pasting and no attribution provided. Copy-pasting with attribution is ok if the content is taken to a new article. This is the same article. That means all it's done is lose hundreds of edits worth of history from a relatively new contributor. One of the ways we can retain new editors is by making sure they get recognised for their work. In the meantime, User:AndrewNatty has listed the article on their userpage as one of their successful creations. That's akin to an AfC reviewer listing all their acceptances as their creations. AndrewNatty moved the page and did it wrong by the way, and definitely did not create the article. So, unless I've missed something in my observations above, it's very wrong. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 04:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, you've clearly looked at the page in much more detail than I had done. › Mortee _talk 07:22, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. But how did this user create the page and got reviwed and accepted before my draft which I have submitted days before his. Or didn't he place the article for submission at all. Did he just created the page directly Taymeedeeray (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Created in mainspace directly; not submitted via AFC review. You can see in the article history. --David Biddulph (talk) 07:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please how can that be done. How can you create in mainspace directlyTaymeedeeray (talk) 08:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can make a new page in mainspace directly by navigating to the non-existing page, e.g. Page that doesn't exist, and clicking the link there to start the article. It's risky for a new editor to do that, though, unless they're very bold. The Articles for Creation process is intended to let new editors work on an article until it's looking OK before publishing. If you just start an article directly and it turns out there's something wrong with it, you might get dragged through Articles for Deletion or other processes that just aren't friendly. You absolutely have the option, and you can always ask for help here, but unless you're confident then I wouldn't recommend taking the direct route at first. It's a shame that this time it means someone else got there first but, now there's an article about The Voice Nigeria (Season 2), you can edit it just as much as the article's creator can, if you think it should be different. › Mortee _talk 20:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much, I really feel bad that someone else us taking credit for my hard work in compiling all the information about the show. I want the article deleted as copyvio Taymeedeeray (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with Mortee's assessment of what happened here. Clearly, Taymeedeeray created a draft with text, images and tables. AndrewNatty copied the content, posted it as an article, and claims to have created the article. How is that not outright plagiarism? David notMD (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

David notMD Thanks very much for recognizing the fact. How do I delete the page as copyvio

Can someone publish an article for me?

I have been writing an article about an Icelandic handball player but can't seem to publish it since i dont have 10 edits on my account. I'm really sorry if I'm asking in the wrong place, but could someone move the article from draft to wikipedia for me?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:%C3%9Er%C3%A1inn_Orri_J%C3%B3nsson --— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Arnaldurb (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Your draft Draft:Þráinn Orri Jónsson has not been submitted for review yet, you need to click the blue "submit" button. Theroadislong (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Arnaldurb, I can't even read the title. Probably should be English? Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

The title is Draft:Þráinn Orri Jónsson. Theroadislong (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool the title is a proper name. Non-English names, and indeed names in non-latin scripts, are often used as article titles. If this is moved to mainspace, a redirect from a transliteration should probably be created. See Thráin for some other articles using this name in the title. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Dead Ends

There's a dead end in every mission that involves editing. How do I get through it????? -User:Prahlad Balaji — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prahlad balaji (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding the "Earth" part of the Wikipedia Adventure. Are you sure you aren't just finished with the task and can therefore click "Next"? – Thjarkur (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure. -◊PRAHLAD^Balaji 19:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Deleting article as copyvio

Pls , Someone copied and pasted ghe content of a draft Draft:The Voice Nigeria season 2 created by me and created it into an article The Voice Nigeria (Season 2) in main space. How do I delete this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taymeedeeray (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Where is the copyright violation? PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In copying within Wikipedia without attribution, PrimalBlueWolf. See #Draft moved to main space above. --ColinFine (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, two different sections. Thanks. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Please Check the content of both pages and check the page history . You will see that it was a copyright. I feel bad because I worked really hard to compile the information.How do I request for a deletion Taymeedeeray (talk) 12:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Taymeedeeray, thanks for your question. Everything you post to Wikipedia is released under a free content licence, which (with some restrictions) means that other people can freely use your contributions elsewhere. You'll see just above the publish changes button on the editing screen text which says By publishing changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. This means that the article you drafted can be copied and used elsewhere on Wikipedia by other users. However, one of the terms of this licence is that material copied is properly attributed (see WP:PATT) and this was not done by the user who created The Voice Nigeria (Season 2). I have added a note on the talk page of that article and your draft which attributes the copied content to you. Unfortunately, because anything posted to Wikipedia is released under this licence, you cannot request that it is deleted (and you cannot revoke the licence - see this essay). However, I will say that I find it pretty bad form on the part of the user who copied the material and I am sorry that this has happened to you and personally think you deserve an apology and explanation from the user in question. I'm sorry I can't be of more help; I hope you understand. Let me know if you have any further questions. WJ94 (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

WJ94, as the only significant contributor to the article, Taymeedeeray can request G7 deletion. The only reason I haven't suggested it is that any admin unfamiliar with the issue will see someone else on the article's history and decline it. More than that though, it's about common sense prevailing over our community, one of our five pillars was made for this. Asking that the page be deleted and the draft properly moved with editing history intact is not a big ask. Personally, I wish AndrewNatty would G7 it themself, save us all trouble. I have suggested Taymeedeeray to ask just that from AndrewNatty. If not, I intend to take it WP:AN and failing that, even AfD. Anything short would be letting a new contributor down. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 16:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, G7 is possibly an option but I think it is more complicated in this case. As far as I am aware, G7 is more of a courtesy to users, allowing them to delete material which they have technically released under Wikipedia's licences but of which they are presently the only contributor. Technically, the copyright issues remain the same - the material is released under Wikipedia's licence and can be reused by anybody elsewhere on Wikipedia, provided there is correct attribution. So while Taymeedeeray certainly has the right to request G7 of their draft, AndrewNatty's copy & paste into the mainspace at least muddies the waters. WP:IAR does not work when we are dealing with matters of copyright and licencing. I guess AfD is a possibility, since I suppose the community could come to a consensus that this article should be deleted, and then Taymeedeeray vcan proceed with their getting their draft through AfC in their own time. Having said all of that, having looked through AndrewNatty's talk page and contributions, I am developing some concerns of my own around the user's understanding of copyright, and WP:CIR in general. On that note, the Teahouse is not the place forum and I would be open to either of us starting an ANI thread at some point. WJ94 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's not the case in this situation. The entire article was copied from the beginning to the end. Wikipedia gives a request for deletion as copyvio if this happens. I can't just lose my weeks of compiling to another person. Wikipedia doesn't work like that Taymeedeeray (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia works exactly that way. Everything created in draft and article form can be copied into other articles as long as an attribution is made (which is what was missing in this instance). The copyright violation rule applies to when content from a copyright protected article outside Wikipedia is copied into Wikipedia. Those are deleted. What happened to your draft was plagiarism. There is no recourse that will delete the article and allow you to go forward with your draft. However, a permanent note has been attached to the Talk page of the article, showing that the content originated with your draft, and a warning has been placed on the Talk page of the editor who copied your content. You are also free to improve the existing article. David notMD (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

​Yes you're right, copying your work without giving attribution is a copyright violation. I've requested that the edit histories be merged which would show you as the original author. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Very well, @Taymeedeeray and V: I will do the history merge. It is not strictly required, but it is a good idea. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done The history has now been merged inot The Voice Nigeria (Season 2), and you are celarly shown as the article's creator Taymeedeeray. Feel free to edit the article further (as anyone may) if there are improvements to be made. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC).

Thanks so much everyone who contributed in helping me. I feel so happy that everything I did didn't go to waste. All my weeks of compiling information and reliable sources. I really appreciate it . Taymeedeeray (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence in the entry on Caroline Kennedy

This sentence appears in the entry about Caroline Kennedy, former ambassador to Japan:

"Kennedy's first cousin Maria Shriver “nasally voice, Mademoiselle as it were, served as the bride's matron of honor, and Ted later walked her down the aisle."

I wonder if someone who doesn't like Maria Shriver inserted the words ""nasally voice mademoiselle as it were." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.3.134 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. I removed the vandalism. You could have done it as well, since the article is not protected. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:29, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The phrase was introduced in this edit ( 01:30, 27 November 2019‎ (UTC-4) by an nunregistered (IP) editor. It is partly marked as a quote openign quote marks, but is neither nattribguted nor cited as a quote. I plan to remove it as unsourced and nunclear. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to the Teahouse. I checked the page history and this was part of recent vandalism. I have reverted all of it. Thanks for notifying us. Another editor had reverted part of it but missed some vandalism from previous edits. It's good to examine the page history in such cases. Cullen328 must have reverted to the same version as me but saved later so only my edit is listed in the page history. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you beat me to it, PrimeHunter. Thanks. That is a BLP violation even if those words were a quote from somewhere else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Policy question on BRD cycle

So ideal world, you make a bold edit, someone reverts it, you go to the talk page and discuss it. Consensus is reached swiftly (ideal world and all) and we move on. Less ideal world, consensus is reached slowly, we move on.

What is the process to follow where you make a bold edit, someone reverts it, you go to the talk page to discuss and that's the end of it? No discussion, the reverting editor doesn't discuss the changes?

I can see that you would want to make those changes again. You could rapidly run into 3RR doing that. Even if you don't, it's still edit warring if you just revert their revert - right? I can see a number of good processes in place for how to deal with a content dispute, and all of them depend first on there having been talk page discussion.

As you may have guessed, this is not entirely hypothetical. I'm watching the Hazbin_Hotel article fill up with fancruft from a number of editors. Some of those editors are discussing on the talk page, but many of them are not. I'd love some advice on how to deal with this type of scenario on Wikipedia, as I assume it must crop up from time to time. - PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi PrimalBlueWolf. If you're BOLD and your reverted by another editor, then you are going to be expected to follow BRD and as long as you're doing that you're going to be fine. At the same time, you cannot make someone discuss something with you on an article talk page if they don't want to. So, if someone's going to revert you and claim you should follow BRD, then they should be willing to engage in discussion with you and others on the article talk page; they can decide not to, but that doesn't mean others cannot discuss things. So, if you make a good faith effort to try and get someone to discuss (perhaps even by posting a friendly reminder on their user talk page since it's possible they aren't aware of the discussion) and they never do, you can try to get feedback from a relevant WP:PNB or a WP:WPPJ by posting a Template:Please see or move to another stage of the dispute resolution process by getting others involved. At some point, a consensus reached on the article's talk page (excluding anything per WP:CONLEVEL) is going to determine whether content should be added or removed whenever their is a content dispute, and all editors are going to be expected to honor said consensus (unless it's something which advocates a serious policy/guideline violation) regardless of whether they were involved in establishing it. They can't simply ignore it because they don't like it or don't agree with it. You're correct that simply reverting their edits are not going to likely be considered an exemption to 3RR, but their re-adding any content removed per talk page consensus is also not going to be considered an exemption since it's not WP:BRRD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello, PrimalBlueWolf and welkcome to the Teahouse. Each situation is different, and i haven't yet looked at Hazbin_Hotel. But if you open a discussion on the talk page, ping mother neditors, and no one engages, you could take that to mean that no one disagrees with your position. You can try dispute reso0lutuinb, particularly Third Opnion, or ask other editors to weigh in. Eventually, if you still think your changes to be an improvement, you could reinstate them, pointing to your attempted talk page discussion. Do not, of course, let it degenerate into an edit war. Note that a consensus need not include every editor working non a given articel or page. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Informer Technologies: No Wikipedia Page

More of a comment than a question, but here goes: Has anyone tried to Google the search terms "Informer Technologies" and "Wikipedia" or "Software.Informer" and "Wikipedia"? A bunch of piggyback informer sites pop up- harmless no doubt, and many relating to Wikipedia or, as one might suggest, their own version of it.

The site powers the forums PunBB and FluxBB, both are well developed and popular S/W. I have personally published software on Software.informer before and had zero issues, unlike this where softinfo.exe has been reported by some as unsafe. The site has been known in the past for its aggressive cookies, scripting and BHOs. With no Wikipedia article, it's not easy to ascertain the launch date of Informer.com- from memory it could be possibly as early as 2000.

May not be enough resource or impetus for a Wikipedia article at this time- but at least it's out there. Thanks. --Lmstearn (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Lmstearn and welcoem to the Teahouder. The question isn'ty whetehr it is good or bad software or a good company to deal with. The question is wheter it is notable in Wikipedia terms. See our guideline for notability of a company and our guidelione for the notability of software. While there are other route, the most common and usualy the best is to find multiple independent professionally published reliable sources that ndiscuss the subject in some detail. That means not from the subject itself, or peole connected with it, not pressreleases, not fan sites, not forums or blogs, not directory entries or listings, not brief mentions. Then somone ahs to be intersted in writing an article, which is some effort, and do so [[WP:NPOV|neutrally, not promotionally. Only if al of that happens wilol there be a Wikipedia article. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@DESiegel: thanks. According to Trend Micro, https://informer.com is classified as a:

Site about computers, the Internet, or related technology, including sites that sell or provide reviews of electronic devices. and it is safe.

Thinking that if ever a page were put up for them, there wouldn't be too much in it, at least as to what is found on their about page.--Lmstearn (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting User ID

Hello, please help my IP address got changed as my internet service provider was upgrading their system, how do I redirect my current user ID to the new IP address.Glittershield (talk) 04:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Glittershield. With rare exceptions unless you are in China or Turkey, you can log into your Wikipedia account from any IP address or device. That might be a fresh new IP at home, or an IP associated with a device at your local public library or university or workplace. You can use a desktop, a laptop, a tablet or a smartphone owned by you or anyone else, as long as you maintain your account security. In other words, your Wikipedia account is a completely separate entity from your current IP address. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Cullen for the information.Glittershield (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Help me to improve my draft! Please

I am working on the draft Draft:Markov constant (Diophantine approximation). It was declined 10 days ago, and I changed (quite a lot of) wording. However, I asked something else at the Teahouse and the people still think my article is too technical. So can anyone kindly help me to improve my draft? I prefer a user excelling in mathematics. 數神 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi 數神. If you prefer a user excelling in mathematics, you might want to try asking at WT:MATH since that's where you're likely to find other editors interested in mathematics. You might also want to try Talk:Markov number since that seems similar in content to the draft you're working on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Birth name: Candy Darling

Not sure if this is a Teahouse or Help Desk question; but - the Warhol actress Candy Darling was born James Lawrence Slattery. "He" later became a transsexual so the pronouns in her article are "she" - which is appropriate. But there is not one mention of his birth name in the lede, infobox or article. Is this proper encyclopedic entry writing? Thanks in advance. Maineartists (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome Maineartists! If properly sourced, a treatment similar to Chelsea Manning in the lead might be appropriate. In this discussion we decided that birth names of trans and non-binary people should only be included in their articles' lead sentences if the people were notable prior to coming out. I'm not familiar with the case of Darling specifically but hopefully this guidance is helpful. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you: Chetsford for pointing out the WP policy. Of course, to me this is absolutely ridiculous and exclusive to "trans" and "non-binary" as opposed to anyone else who simply changes their names and becomes famous after the fact: Irving Berlin / Israel Isidore Beilin, Al Jolson / Asa Yoelson etc, etc, etc. Why on earth should trans, non-binary or anyone else exceptional to the rule be given special treatment here at WP? Maineartists (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Maineartists. The WP:RFC cited above by Chetsford seemed to be fairly well participated as RFCs go, but it was also something discussed back in 2015. There's nothing wrong with seeking further clarification or even seeking that the situation be reassessed since a consensus can change over time. The best place for you to probably further discuss this would be at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography since that seems to be the relevant guideline for this type of thing; however, if you do, try to keep "Wikipedia:Assume good faith" in mind and avoid jumping to the conclusion that those who participated in that previous discussion who were in favor of the change just had to be doing so for the wrong reasons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

You may have a valid point, though I haven't given the matter much study so can't offer an informed opinion one way or the other. I think Marchjuly offers excellent advice as to possible next-steps, however. Chetsford (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Note also, Chetsford, that the 2015 discussion linked above dealt only with wheather to include the birth or pre-transition name in the lead sentence. It did not so much as mention the question of whether to incldue it later in the articel, yet most of the arguments for keeping nit out of the lead sentence or lead section would also apply to keeping the old name entirely out of the article. That really should be more clarly settled. Further discussion may be needed, as Marchjuly suggests boive. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Maineartists: DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct! Chetsford (talk) 07:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Language translation

Is it possible to translate English Wikipedia article in another language you do not speak or understand? If yes, how do I do it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akgideens (talk • contribs) 10:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Akgideens: Welcome to the Teahouse. I am not sure I fully understand the question - are you looking to translate a Wikipedia article into another language to help you read it? If so, you have two options really: The first would be to see if the page exists in another Wikipedia in your language, just visit the home page to see all the options. However, that page may not be a direct translation of the English page, as generally each Wikipedia is written by different volunteers. Option 2 is just to put the page into Google Translate, simply to help you read it. But I am a bit puzzled by why you say you want to translate a page into a language you do not speak? Why would you want to do that? If what you are asking is how to translate a page from English into another language, it will be down to the policies of the other language Wikipedia. For example, if you are translating into French, you would need to go to the French Wikipedia and find out what their rules are - for example would they accept a machine translation (i.e. through Google translate). It seems unwise to get involved in that if you don't speak the language, though. Maybe if you can explain more about why you ask the question, I can give better advice. Hug^syrup 11:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing AfC of new content for now-moved page?

I've been wanting to improve an article originally titled Sacred Heart Preparatory (Atherton, California), and my first step was to propose a move to the more accurate title of Sacred Heart Schools, Atherton. The move request was unopposed and so, at the end of 7 days, an uninvolved editor moved it over – apparently a few hours ago.

In parallel, I've been working on improving the content, a draft of which I also submitted for AfC review about a week ago. It sounds like it can take up to six months to get these reviews completed, though, and because the new title isn't all that consistent with the more limited scope of the old content, I'd like to hasten the process. Can I just move the content over, boldly and in sections, via copy and paste (but plowing over its history, sparse and stale though it may be, in the process)? If so, what do I do with the request for review? Ottoump (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it's not really plowing over the history as much as radically appending it? Ottoump (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ottoump, I have declined the submission as a duplicate. You can bring the text from there and improve the article. Take it slow when you radically alter an article. Start a talk page discussion about what you intend to do, have done, are doing. Make one or two bold expansions, and wait a few days to see if anyone objects and/or reverts. If someone does, discuss it with them. If no one does, continue. That would be my advice. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Usedtobecool – that's excellent. Thank you. Do you know how long I have before the draft is deleted? Can I move it back over to my sandbox, as a staging area? Ottoump (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ottoump, you have six months before it will be considered for deletion. You will be notified when that happens. Yes, you can move it back to your userspace. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 08:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to know.

Hello, Ottoump. To clarify, the AfC process is only for a new article about a topic not currently the subject of a Wikipedia article. It is not appropriate to submit drafts of rewrites of existing articles to AfC. The best way to improve an existing article is through a series of incremental changes to that article, explained clearly through edit summaries and talk page discussion. Massive rewrites all in one fell swoop are often controversial, and are sometimes perceived as disrespectful to the previous editors who have worked on the article over the years. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Cullen328. In retrospect, I see how that makes sense. I'll proceed incrementally, and use the talk page to make it clear what's going on. Ottoump (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Editing a Contentious page

Hi there,

I just made a small edit to a page in the field of Politics (the page not the edit!). I debated whether I should make the edit for the past day or two, even though it is a tiny edit and is really a "houskeeping/admin" type edit. I had this internal debate, not because I imagine the edit to be problematic, but because the subject matter of the page is one that provokes strongly-held views.

The specific edit is that I marked the page Militant (Trotskyist group) as being in the category "Labour Party (UK) factions", but my question goes to the general case... Is there a way to mark an edit for independent review for such very small edits? Or, should I just go ahead and make them and see what happens?

I would love to know what is the correct etiquette. I don't want to waste anybody's time with unnecessary reviews.

Any help appreciated.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Dublin (talk • contribs) 11:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Paul Dublin (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Dublin. No there is not exactly any facility to mark a specific edit as needing review. A few pages have a form of protection known as "pending changes", where every chnge by an editor without special rights is reviewwed before it goes live. More commonly, people may be using a personal watchlist to be notified of changes to a particualr articlewor page of interest, and may then choose to reveiw any such change.

The steps you shoulkd take are: 1) include an Edit summary with each edit, explaining what you are doing, such as "add ctegory" (or "+ cat") for the edit you describe. 2) If you think the edit might be at all controversial, you can also post to the article talk page, explaining at greater length what you are doing and why you think it is a good idea. Usually adding a category does not rquire that, unless the category is controversial. 3) When adding or changing factual statements, be sure to have the support of reliable sourcves, and in all but the most obvious cases cite them in the article. See referencing for Beginners for how to do citatioins in various styles. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 13:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, DESiegel. Thank you for the prompt response and sound advice. To be honest, part of my concern was that it is exactly those users with strongly-held views that have the pages on a personal watchlist!

I appreciate you taking the time for me and will do as you say and also post to the talk page when I feel I may be straying into controversial territory.

Paul Dublin (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Dr Rosie Knowles notable enough to have a Wikipedia page written about her yet?

She is an award winning speaker and the author of Why Babywearing Matters published by Pinter & Martin. She is in demand as a public speaker in the Babywearing world. Last week she was the main subject of a yahoo news report. She has previously been interview on BBC TV and Radio. Her Carrying Matters project focusses on the importance and benefits of carrying babies for good mental health for the parent and carrier. She is a citation in an article about "Baby Transport" on Wikipedia.

https://www.carryingmatters.co.uk/about-rosie/

https://www.pinterandmartin.com/why-babywearing-matters

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cuddling-babies-helps-them-grow-into-confident-adults-expert-says-110915366.html?soc_src=community&soc_trk=ma

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

Any thoughts about whether she should be included yet would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robekn (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Robekn: It's difficult to come to a general assessment about whether an individual is notable enough to have an article about them without doing substantial research of my own, but what I can say is that your sources are not sufficient to establish her notability. Carrying Matters appears to be her own website, so is not independent; Pinter and Martin is a shop stocking her book - not a reliable source; the Yahoo article quotes her in order to support reporting on another topic, but the article is not about her, so this is not significant coverage of Knowles (the same would probably go for her BBC interviews); and of course Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source - nor does the fact that her book is used as a citation elsewhere make her notable in her own right. Hug^syrup 14:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, are you by any chance Rosie Knowles, or do you know her well? If so, please just check out our policy on editing with a conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 14:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for your reply. She is actually my wife and I'm aware of the conflict of interest issue. I hope in the future she'll become more notable and someone will consider creating a page for her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robekn (talk • contribs) 14:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Robekn I would note that Wikipedia has articles, not mere "pages". This is a subtle but important distinction. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Academic profile

Hello,

I am trying to publish my academic profile as independent researcher on wikipedia. I have listed notably commissions and publications. Unfortunately, publishing the article has prompted a speedy deletion. please advise in how I might improve my article?

best...

mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPilk (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not here for promotion. Please read the advice against trying to create an autobiography. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello DrPilk. Your deleted sandbox draft User:DrPilk/sandbox read in many ways like a resume, combines with a brochure or personal profile from a personal web site. It does not cite any independent published reliable sources. Those are key to making a Wikipedia article work. Text such as The music reflects the emotion of electronic sound made with analogue and digital synthesisers its angular with strangely warm melodies, thoughtfully syncopated rhythms, noise textures to pushing beyond the conventions of techno and ambient music. do not belong in a Wikipedia articel except perhaps as a quotation attributed and cires to a named person or entity. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 18:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

is wiki going down

I heard that wiki needs money because it will soon go down is that true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txgjayjay (talk • contribs) 19:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Txgjayjay Unless you have a media report to the contrary, I'm not aware of any financial issues that the Wikimedia Foundation has that are as dire as putting Wikipedia at risk. As a nonprofit, it does operate on donations, but there isn't a particular or extraordinary need for them at this time. 331dot (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Txgjayjay. You are welcome to donate money to the Wikimedia Foundation if you wish. However, the foundation had income of over US $100 million in 2018 and has an endowment of about US $35 million. It is not in imminent financial danger. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

References

So do references mean that the whole article we cite is about what we put the reference on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tysaurasrex (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Tysaurasrex, and welcome to the Teahouse. No, a cited reference does not need to about the point it is cited for and nothing else. It should contain information that supports one or more statements in an article. If it is unclear exactly what information is being cited, and if citation templates are being used, the |quote= parameter can be used to include a short quotation showing exactly what language supports the statement. If the source is a book, PDF or other paginated source, a page number (or numbers) should be specified to help locate the exact part of the source which supports the statements in the article. See citing sources and Referencing for Beginners for more on how to use citations to sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

How to report editors that censor Wikipedia- How to block governmental control of information

Hello Wiki Community,

There have been ongoing protests in Iran and over 400 killed. The Islamic Republic blocked the internet for a week so the news are not leaked outside. Some users are actively deleting pages that contain information about the protests. Is there a way to resist such governmental supported efforts to block the control of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esmomen (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Esmomen. Please provide the exact names of the specific articles that have been altered or deleted. Please consider filing a detailed report at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The most relevant article appears to be 2019 Iranian protests which has extensive information about the protests, the casualties, and the efforts of the Iranian government to suppress and conceal the facts. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi.

Hi. How can I edit at least 6-month-old articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponge333 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sponge333: With the exception of a small number of protected articles, you should be able to edit any article in the encyclopedia. Check out WP:TUTORIAL and WP:ADVENTURE to learn how. RudolfRed (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sponge333: Indeed; there isn't any age-of-article based limitations on editing. Some articles may be protected for periods of time, but that isn't based on the age of the article or when it was created. If you want to edit a protected article and cannot, you should make an edit request on the article talk page. 331dot (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Judging grounds for reverting articles.

One editor has frequently criticised my writing as appropriate for academic papers but not for encyclopedia articles. He reverted my "Fact-value distinction" on the following grounds (without discussion on talk page): "22 May 2018‎ 131.111.185.45 0‎ Recent changes have turned this article into an essay. Reverted to previous version which represents a better starting point for a comprehensive re-writing." Are there any WP protocols or definitions to which I can appeal against these arbitrary definitions and actions? Thanks.TBR-qed (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

TBR-qed, I see multiple reviews about your edits on the article's talk page. The IP has a point, but the editors who left you their thoughts on the talk page opined that your edits were generally helpful and only had some issues in need of addressing. One of them even linked two pages which they said would help an editor understand what makes an article more like an essay and less like a summary of what sources say. Why not first ask them there, whether they too agree with the wholesale revert, or would they be ok with restoring your edits and letting you work on improving it further to address theirs and the reverting IP's concerns?

Back to your original question, the burden would be on the asserting editor to show that their argument is per policy and guidelines. So, it is they who need to say what exactly, per policy, do they mean when they say it has turned into an essay. Usually the most likely answer to that would be WP:NOTESSAY, and the elaboration on how your contributions might veer into the essay territory and how you can fix that would be in those two pages that were linked for you by one of the editors who reviewed your work on that article. According to WP:BRD, when your WP:BOLD edit is Reverted, you should initiate a talk page discussion as a productive alternative to rereverting and starting an edit war. Thus, the recommended course of action is to ask the IP why exactly they reverted, and what they mean when they say the article has turned into an essay. Could they provide a few specific examples and explain how they could be written better or not written at all? Etcetera. Hope this helps! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 23:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nat Turner

The talk pages for Nat Turner and Nat Turner's slave rebellion both seem to have come to a consensus that the two articles should be merged. I would like to take a stab at taking the best content from both articles and consolidating it to a single article but I'm not sure how to get started. Should I copy / paste from Nat Turner to Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion or is there a more elegant way tool to merge the articles? If there are step by step instructions for merging articles and setting up the redirect that would be especially helpful. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@MarylandGeoffrey: Is WP:MERGE helpful? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 03:12, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

That is the guidance I was looking for. Apologies if everyone already knows that process, I'm a fairly new editor. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MarylandGeoffrey, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:MERGE is the right guideline, (IMO) but before proceeding you might want to consider addressing the arguments of GuzzyG opposing the merge, and consider seeking a wider consensus. Nat Turner's slave rebellion is a very significant historical event, and Nat Turner a central figure in that event, who is very widely known and has been much written about, althoguh the basic data available is quite limited. The points of those favoring a merge are not invalid, but this is a case to move with care in my veiw. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 06:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think a discussion is essential because it'll fundamentally change how we treat rebellion biographies. There's tons of articles of figures like Pemulwuy that are in the same situation. I think a rule that was meant to keep reality tv show and beauty pageant contestants from all having a article is bad to apply to historical rebellions. They're highly significant events and as the central figure responsible the leaders should get a pass; even if the information is relatively similar. Britannica has it's article on Nat Turner himself. There's not much information known with Spartacus beyond the rebellion too, should we merge him for example? Where do we draw the line? GuzzyG (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Since this appears more controversial than I thought, I'm not going to take any action until a consensus is reached. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 05:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)