ARTICLE GETS DELINED ALWAYS
I really don't understand, when I see other articles on the same platform, passed the qualification, and got approved. I followed the same way when writing my article but get decline. Do you consider based on Popularity or facts? Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- This regards Draft:Malawi Luxury Inc. Seeing as you are writing what appears to be an advertisement for this company, it is no wonder it has been declined repeatedly. Wikipedia is not an advertising agency. If you wish to make your brand more noticeable, please contact an ad agency. To create an article for a company is a difficult thing. Read WP:BOSS for my general advice on editing about a company. AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 20:43, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ophirizayamba2021: Fix ping AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 20:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ophirizayamba2021, please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for a better understanding of what makes a company notable and therefore eligible for a Wikipedia article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Ophirizayamba2021: Fix ping AdmiralEek Thar she edits! 20:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
The only problems I see is that the section names are all caps, in the main thing there is a link showing and not a reference. That’s all I can see. Maybe check if you have cap locks on Josh cant edit at all (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- The article is written like a advertisement. The punctuation is also missing in lots of spots. The lead section (which in this article's case is most of the whole article) isn't cited either. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ophirizayamba2021 Please see other stuff exists. Other similar articles existing does not automatically mean yours can too. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, it is possible for inappropriate articles to go undetected, even for years. We can only address what we know about. If you want to help out, please identify some of these articles you have seen for possible action. 331dot (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Before you do anything, reply to the PAID query on your Talk page. If you are paid, must be declared on your User page. If not, state that on your Talk page. David notMD (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2021 (UTC) This article is NOT PAID, If I indicated at first, then I must have missed it, This is not paid, Let me give you a bit hint. In Malawi, there is No Print on demand, and this just started Last Year, I provided links based on what has been achieved and what others are talking about it. Malawi is not Europe, its one of the poorest, so some new companies take time to get that Public figure status, If you require it to mature for years before writing an article about it, then I can totally understand, but I was more than careful when starting the project, followed all the processes, checked how others are coming up with articles, this is why am surprised to get a note that it looks like an advertisement. I love Wikipedia
Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I have not get any response from you please update me with the proceedings.
- Ophirizayamba2021 You have had many many responses. So sum them up, the sections are in all caps, it is like an ad, punctuation issues are prevalent, and it is unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Ophirizayamba2021 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I have heard, your points. So now, what is the first step i need to do to the article ? so i can improve it
- If the above responses are not sufficient in providing you the direction, then you are not ready to edit topics with potential for advert. Since you are not paid, and are here just because you love Wikipedia, just drop this topic and move on to something else where it's easier to learn the ropes, where you can get help from others without being seen with suspicion, where notability guidelines are much more straightforward, or sources more abundant. Maybe, some things to do with the history of Malawi. Or social topics you are familiar with. Then, when you have gained sufficient experience with editing, you can revisit the topic and reassess then whether it is actually notable. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Usedtobecool. Start with editing articles that interest you; it's fun, and you will like it. Good luck! BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
my article move new page
sir my old article move to space draft This is my new article {{Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh}} --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for help [1] --Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh
- Hi Darveshpur. I'm not sure what you are asking about with regard to the draft, currently located at Draft:Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh. The AfC submission template in it, at the top, contains a big blue link for "Submit the draft for review!" However, the last reviewer's comment left at the draft, after you last submitted it, said "PLEASE add reliable sources before submitting for review". No reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail were added by you after that comment was left by the reviewer.
After you posted your question here, I took a look and finding it was a copyright violation and plagiarism, reverted the draft to before the previously written material was added, hid part of the history, and left notes about this in the draft and at your talk page. Do you have any follow-up questions?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
How do I tag a page for BLP
Hi. I'm trying to tag a page for BLP, so it informs those who edit the page that they are editing an article relating to BLP. But I don't see a tag relating to this sort of thing. Is there an issue? Thanks. Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 17:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Am I allowed to add an image in case you don't know what I'm talking about? Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 18:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- (e/c) Hi Seahawks4Life. Please see the article talk page template: {{BLP}}. I know of no template that is geared solely for the purpose of tagging a BLP as a BLP, for display in the article itself. However, there are numerous templates related to BLPs that flag some underlying concern. For example, the list next to "BLP-specific" in {{Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates}}. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I realized there was a tiny glitch that removed what I was talking about for a couple minutes. It's back now. Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Seahawks4Life: Ah, great. I was actually composing a follow-up. Probably superflous now, but I thought you might be referring to the output of {{BLP editintro}}, which per its documentation:
This means that the page must be directly or secondarily placed into one of those categories. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)This edit intro is shown automatically when editing a page categorized as either Category:Living people or Category:Possibly living people. The edit intro is injected into the edit URL by MediaWiki:Common.js.
- @Seahawks4Life: Ah, great. I was actually composing a follow-up. Probably superflous now, but I thought you might be referring to the output of {{BLP editintro}}, which per its documentation:
- Thanks. I realized there was a tiny glitch that removed what I was talking about for a couple minutes. It's back now. Seahawks4LifeTALK—CONTRIBS 18:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
Hello. A member of Rosguill advised to seek help in this section. I wrote an article in a draft about an organization that is part of the largest state university in Russia - Draft:Moscow Center for Consciousness Studies. I want to show here (I was recommended by an experienced participant) several authoritative sources that consider the activities of the organization. References: 1 - this book has a good overview; 2 - this book also has an overview; 3 - this scientific article discusses the organization in great detail. Unfortunately, all sources are Russian. 2A00:1FA1:4301:DA57:889D:A04E:AFC0:DDF2 (talk) 18:02, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English sources. In sum, sources do not need to be in English (nor available online). All things being equal, if there is an English source and a foreign language source of equal status (reliability, independence, etc.) we prefer the English as a matter of ease of verifiability for our readers, but outside of that, it is perfectly acceptable to use non-English sources. Please note, though, that as a pragmatic concern, doing so may make a review take longer—because the presence of the foreign language sources is likely to cause some reviewers to move along to review something easier for them to access—but it is never a valid reason to decline a draft from acceptance. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. It is very important for me that someone speaks out about my sources. Is the literature, books, and scientific articles that describe the organization suitable? And it is very important to me that someone looks at the style of the article and helps to improve the article in terms of style. Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:FA:37C6:E9A6:63D6:9B13:DB0A (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- I recommend that you edit the article yourself the best you can, removing any unreliable sources (and content sourced to unreliable sources) and adding reliable sources (and content citing those sources). Once you believe that you have finished the article, you can submit it for consideration by typing {{subst:submit}} at the top of your draft in the code view and saving. Once it is submitted, a reviewer will consider the sources in the article, the tone of the article, etc. and determine whether it is acceptable. People monitoring the Teahouse board here generally do not handle this review process. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. It is very important for me that someone speaks out about my sources. Is the literature, books, and scientific articles that describe the organization suitable? And it is very important to me that someone looks at the style of the article and helps to improve the article in terms of style. Thanks! 2A00:1FA1:FA:37C6:E9A6:63D6:9B13:DB0A (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that there are three separate criteria for a source being satisfactory to establish notability: reliability is one, but the other two are independence from the subject, and having significant coverage of the subject. At least a third of your sources are published by msu.ru, so they are not independent of the Centre. Such sources can be used in certain circumstances (see SELFPUB) but they do nothing to establish its notability, and a section which is supported only by non-independent sources generally does not belong in a Wikipedia article. Remember that Wikipedia is not interested in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is only interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. --ColinFine (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @ColinFine: I looked at these sources carefully. The first two books, which describe the organization, have nothing to do with MSU. In the third source, indeed, the author of the scientific article is the MSU processor, so it can not be taken into account, I fully agree with you. Then I will replace it with this source - 1, 2.2A00:1FA1:43B5:8B39:87:A5EF:F442:6993 (talk) 07:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
question
am I aloud to use a photo from a source if I put a link to it even if I don't get permission? I just wanna double check Thememe420 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thememe420, as a general matter, no. Certain photos are freely licensed or public domain, but those are special cases, and most images from around the internet don't fit into either category. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
rcats
does every redirect need a rcat? i'm a bit confused, as some don't have one, and some do
2603:8000:9903:663C:7DFC:7C75:B28F:27B6 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, every redirect should have one, though I think in practice most do not because no one has gotten around to categorizing them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Ethical Issues
Hello. I am author of several traditionally published books which have developed new information at academic standards in a given subject area. I am embarking on a project to edit Wikipedia articles on approx. 20 subjects, to start, for accuracy and the inclusion of new and relevant information. In working on the first one I'm finding a number of errors of fact and omissions of relevant information that I will correct based on my own academically documented information. I will also be editing the article in a few instances where something that is said in one para is contradicted in another, other problems that seem to come from creation by committee.
Also, this particular article makes positive reference to my book on the subject in its main text. I did not put it there and won't delete it of course, but it confuses my problem:
If I were not personally involved in the subject matter in this way I would have no qualms about making the necessary changes and footnoting them primarily or secondarily to the book that is the source of the information. But in reality I wrote the book, which another editor has complimented in the article, and I'm not quite sure how to handle that. My goals are 1) to use my work to increase accuracy and comprehensiveness in Wikipedia (which is a wonderful tool, among others, for writers of nonfiction), but 2) to be sure that my work is as properly credited as any other would be. I've looked at the COI rules for Wikipedia and think that I can operate within their boundaries, but a result after my editing will be an article that both complements my work and uses it extensively in footnotes, edited by me.
I would appreciate any help in thinking this through. Thank you. Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC) Vabookwriter (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi User:Vabookwriter, and welcome to Wikipedia! The official guideline is WP:SELFCITE, which I assume you have come across. Given how thoughtful you sound here, I think it is likely that you will handle your conflict of interest appropriately. I would recommend disclosing who you are on your userpage if you are comfortable with this, so that your editing is totally transparent. You can also check out WP:COIN, the noticeboard that handles conflict of interest issues, though it is more conflict-driven and confrontational than this board. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Vabookwriter, WP:EXPERT may also contain some useful guidance, but you seem to be thinking in those lines already. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, with "traditionally published" I hope you don't mean WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for those kind responses. I will consider disclosure, and you've confirmed that the answer to a professional problem is to act professionally with the best intention. Re traditionally published: the distinction between traditionally and self-published is increasingly made by active authors as the technology and economics of book writing and publishing keep changing at breakneck speed. A forum similar to this one at the Authors Guild, for example, talks through the intricacies and interdependence of the two forms on a daily basis. Wikipedia mores about self published material will have to evolve as self-pub becomes increasingly legitimate as a tool in the author's output. I have seven traditionally published books and one that was originally trad published, but which I had to get back from the publisher and self-publish to keep its momentum, reviews, Amazon listing, etc. viable. Thanks again. Vabookwriter (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Vabookwriter, one more thing. If you check the talkpages of articles you are interested in, they should mention near the top one or more related WP:WikiProjects. These have talkpages of their own, and though some are abandonded, it's sometimes possible to get help and advice from topic-savvy editors there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh
Hello, I want to publish my first article and I do not know how it will be published. I wrote it for my friend in his name. The article is neutral and the links for proof are given. My article Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh was reviewed but it is still not published and I do not know what I need to do that it gets published? Can you please help? Thanks in advance, Lisa Ehsan Naghibzadeh (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ehsan Naghibzadeh, Reviews can take up to five months. You could ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts if anyone is interested in reviewing it. Most likely, though, you just need to wait patiently. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ehsan Naghibzadeh, one further note -- this one is still pending and has not yet been reviewed. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
A PROBLEM: You chose as your User name the name of the person you are trying to create an article about, at Draft:Ehsan Naghibzadeh. David notMD (talk) 19:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@David notMD; I, Lisa, created the article in his name. However, now I created a new account (Volisa) and rewrote the article again (originally also written by me).. does that solve the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehsan Naghibzadeh (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Suggest Changes to Republish this Articla
Hi,
I was the major contributor to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Stevep2007/sandbox_james_heppelmann. It was deleted because the votes came from people not knowledgeable about industry 4.0 and the challenges of introducing new products as companies evolves.
The reason for the deletion was notability; however, the subject is notable.
I am interested in documenting Industry 4.0 companies that are not a CoI for me, because I have worked in the undustry.
Your suggestion would be appreciated.
Thank you Stevep2007 (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Heppelmann. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:48, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Stevep2007: I took a quick look. I’d remove the entire career history of positions before he became President. It reads too much like a resume, which BTW was already pointed out in the deletion discussion. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Stevep2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is written by volunteers from around the world and intended for all; there is no requirement that people be an expert in the subject areas they participate in, as Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources say. (there are encyclopedia projects out there where one must be an expert in a field in order to write about it, but not here). As you were told, notability is not inherited. Staff of a company do not necessarily merit articles just because the company meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Declined via AfC end of March. In you opinion, is this draft superior to what was deleted? P.S. I deleted the career history because I agree with Tim T. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Calliopejen1 and David notMD - thank you for your thoughtful comments. I also looked more deeply at the awards, obtained by from the web. They might be meaningful to a small audience, but do not add any significant insights. Would you please take another look, and let me know if I should make additional changes. Stevep2007 (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Declined via AfC end of March. In you opinion, is this draft superior to what was deleted? P.S. I deleted the career history because I agree with Tim T. David notMD (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Stevep2007 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Wikipedia is written by volunteers from around the world and intended for all; there is no requirement that people be an expert in the subject areas they participate in, as Wikipedia primarily summarizes what independent reliable sources say. (there are encyclopedia projects out there where one must be an expert in a field in order to write about it, but not here). As you were told, notability is not inherited. Staff of a company do not necessarily merit articles just because the company meets Wikipedia's definition of notability. 331dot (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Title change?
Is there a way to request the title of the article Menkes Developments Ltd. have the period removed from the Ltd at the end? Thank you in advance. 73.0.114.181 (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, and welcome to the Teahouse.The title of the article does not meet the Wikipedia manual of style WP:NCCORP and it should be moved to Menkes Developments. Since that already exists, as a redirect to Murray Menkes, an ordinary editor cannot move the article over it, so I have put in a Move request to do so. (A Move request is what you could have made, but as I say, your preferred title is not appropriate). --ColinFine (talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed. The article was created and so titled by Excel23, who clearly likes "Ltd." (see the edit summary). If anyone's wondering, titling an article with "Ltd" (with or without a dot) conflicts with article titling convention. (And ColinFine, you're not an administrator? That's a bit silly.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Artist page creation
Hello, my great-grandfather Wilhelm Karl Dohmann (*1876 Riga) was a commercial portrait- and landscape painter.
During my genealogy research I found very little regarding his education in the Arts, nor have I been able to establish/proof his place and date of death, so far.
Unfortunately at some point in time an auction house put up the birth and death dates and places of another Wilhelm Dohmann, which is now being used as a reference (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wilhelm_Dohmann_Blick_auf_Stadt_und_Feste_Kufstein.jpg). These dates are close to my ancestor's, but not exact. After consultation with a museum registrar we've come to the conclusion that there are not two painters in the same time period with the name Wilhelm Dohmmann.
I would like to create a page for him, publishing a few cornerstone dates and info, for my personal need for accuracy and maybe a bit of acknowledgement of the "job" portrait painter at the turn of the 19th century.
I have looked at other artist pages and noticed that I am lacking info about his formal education.
I have church book entries relating to his birth, marriage (which includes mention of his trade) and the birth of my grandmother. Also advertisements in newspapers for his studios (Riga and Stuttgart), two other activities, that relate to community activity (as painter).
So far I have created a personal page documenting my art finds on the internet and documenting which ones are owned by family currently. These paintings, together with photos of the family, establish his "provenance".
I would like to know if this information is enough to create a stub, which might in turn yield more connections and info as it is out on the web?
regards, Petra
PS: this is my page: https://wilhelm.dohmann.alsbach.net/ Pisa911 (talk) 20:57, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Pisa911 and welcome to the Teahouse.
- Biographical articles need to be based on significant coverage by independent reports published in what are considered reliable sources. None of the evidence you've mentioned meets these requirements.
- Using your evidence to preserve your great-grandfather's work on a webpage and perhaps writing it up at some of the alternative outlets is probably the best thing you can do at this time. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your research sounds interesting and commendable, Pisa911; but personal websites such as this, and personal assurances that the writer has seen unpublished documents in Stuttgart, Rīga or wherever, are unusable for a Wikipedia article. If you succeed with your research, then Wilhelm Dohmann (your Wilhelm Dohmann) will perhaps be written up in surveys of art of the relevant period/area/genre, and may then qualify. Please see WP:RS, WP:ARTIST, and WP:COI. As for the misunderstandings that may arise from what's written in Wikipedia Commons, it's common for one name to be shared by two artists (consider Sakae Tamura and Sakae Tamura as a humdrum example); but if you think that you can usefully augment the description at commons:File:Wilhelm Dohmann Blick auf Stadt und Feste Kufstein.jpg, then you are free to do so. (And I mean usefully for potential users of that image, not usefully for publicizing a different Dohmann.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your speedy replies,
as it stands I will expand my personal page with a Biography showing the facts as I gather them.
But what about the incorrect information on that Wiki commmons image? I have contacted the auction house in the source section and they have not responded. And it irks me to have the wrong info perpetuated to the point that the museum in Riga itself has it on one of his paintings! And they are not replying to my information requests.
Regarding him turning up in other publications, as he was the equivalent of your modern passport or wedding photographer, so highly unlikely.
Thanks and I will investigate the above alternative outlets
PS: I had made a contribution in 2016, which was accepted, but was told today that I need to disclose my COI, I would appreciate it if someone could check my edited userpage and the contribution if it is all ok. Pisa911 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pisa911, when you talk about "my personal page", I hope that you mean the page to which you pointed us. (A user page in Wikipedia may not be used for such purposes.) Your problems with an auction house and with a museum in Rīga are for you to pursue; neither Wikipedia nor Commons can help you with them. If you can point to a reliable, independent, published source to back you up in saying that something in commons:File:Wilhelm Dohmann Blick auf Stadt und Feste Kufstein.jpg is mistaken, then go ahead and fix it; if you can't, then you can't do anything about it. In the meantime, perhaps you can amass enough material to let you publish an article (elsewhere, not in Wikipedia) that will convincingly distinguish Wilhelm Dohmann from Wilhelm Dohmann and will draw readers' attention to the noteworthiness of the lesser-known of the two. -- Hoary (talk) 00:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- yes indeed Hoarytalk, my web page, NOT userpage. I checked alternative outlets, but not sure if they would be appropriate. I assume Wikimedia commons might be a starting point, but I haven't delved deep enough yet to see, if I can contribute, especially with the notability aspect relevant there as well. My insistence that the info is incorrect is based on the signature comparisons of over 20 paintings. But, since I am not a certified art historian, that is of no value, I know. What makes the auction house source for that image a "reliable, independent, published source"? I know they have uploaded loads of images to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't understand how that makes them a reliable source. I do appreciate your input, even if it isn't directly related to publication on Wiki. thanks Pisa911 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Pisa911, I don't make any claim for the credibility of the auction house. Normally I'd suggest that you bring up the matter with the person who uploaded the image, but I notice that he seems to have been inactive since 2017, so you'd be unlikely to get any response. It's not a Wikipedia matter but instead a Commons matter; how about asking at Commons' help desk? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- yes indeed Hoarytalk, my web page, NOT userpage. I checked alternative outlets, but not sure if they would be appropriate. I assume Wikimedia commons might be a starting point, but I haven't delved deep enough yet to see, if I can contribute, especially with the notability aspect relevant there as well. My insistence that the info is incorrect is based on the signature comparisons of over 20 paintings. But, since I am not a certified art historian, that is of no value, I know. What makes the auction house source for that image a "reliable, independent, published source"? I know they have uploaded loads of images to Wikimedia Commons, but I don't understand how that makes them a reliable source. I do appreciate your input, even if it isn't directly related to publication on Wiki. thanks Pisa911 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hoary, I have asked for help there now. But now I have a different question, when I followed the link the help page came up, and when I click on my username at the top, it said the userpage doesn't exist?? Even though it says that I'm logged in. What am I missing?? Do I have to create a new userpage for every wiki group separately?
- thanks, Pisa911 (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Whereas I (for example) have not only a user page here but also a (perfunctory) user page there, you don't (yet) have a user page there. (Click on this if you want to create one. You are of course under no obligation to do so.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Hoary, will go and create one there.
- Whereas I (for example) have not only a user page here but also a (perfunctory) user page there, you don't (yet) have a user page there. (Click on this if you want to create one. You are of course under no obligation to do so.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Petra, where you wrote "there are not two painters in the same time period with the name", does that mean the other Wilhelm Dohmann (1884–1945) was not a painter? Do you have any information about him other than birth and death years?
- If your great-grandfather died more than 70 years ago, then photographs of his paintings would probably qualify for Wikimedia Commons via c:Template:PD-Art. (Though some countries have weird rules about "unpublished" works which sadly could affect paintings that have only recently been publicly exhibited.)
- — Pelagic ( messages ) – (08:50 Sun 23, AEST) 22:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for that question Pelagic: yes, I assume he was not, but have not found definitive proof for either: I have tried contacting the profile admin for that WD, but they haven't replied. I also have tried contacting a Dohmann descendant in the exact area, found through a google search but they haven't responded to my requests either. So either their WD has not been a painter and they haven't got the time or patience to reply, OR a big mystery involving both our families! //laughing emoticon// not sure if that will show! Anyway, I will check out your link and see if that's a way of getting my WD properly accredited. Thank you for your helpful reply, Pisa911 (talk) 23:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
edition Draft:Peter Mostovoy
Hi, I would like ask the help to finish by right way my article in VisualEditor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Mostovoy . The problem with citation. I don't understand what's wrong. thank you, figelvigelFigelvigel (talk) 21:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- In this edit of 5 January, you, Figelvigel added two references. Good. You need a lot more of this kind of reference, for all the other assertions that are made in this draft. Here's an introductory reminder of how to do this; here is a lot more detail. -- Hoary (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Alden S Gooch
I published a first draft in 2018 and it was rejected. I submitted anew draft is a user space 5/20/2021. Where do I look for reviewers responses to this? Under the watchllist? Hcgarmstrong (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hcgarmstrong Reviewers will respond on the draft itself, and post on your user talk page. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy: recreated draft is at User:Hcgarmstrong/sandbox/Alden S Gooch. David notMD (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your attempts at referencing are an absolute mess. Remove the "ref numbers" you incorporated into the text, and move the actual refs to the ends of the content being referenced. Separately, appears you have typed the same or different refs under the section title References. The right was is embed the refs in the text and the refs will automatically show up as numbered under References. David notMD (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy: recreated draft is at User:Hcgarmstrong/sandbox/Alden S Gooch. David notMD (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Declined page submission
Courtesy link: Draft:Aegean Boat Report
Hi all, I had a page turned down by CommanderWaterford and wanted to ask regarding the following point:
'This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.'
My question is about what specific links this refers to.
The links I provided (more than 30) were all from published, reliable, secondary sources, which included the United Nations and some 25 news agencies across Europe.
All were published.
Was there a specific problem so I can fix it please?
Thanks so much... Rfrokeeffe (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rfrokeeffe This is quite easy to explain - the foremost majority of your sources (and the majority of content) are referring to a controversial theme regarding the greek government and so-called "illegal pushbacks" of migrants and have only in second plan something to do with your organization, so next to it is barely neutral per Wikipedia:NPOV it does not establish sufficient notability per Wikipedia:NORG by independent, secondary, significant coverage. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks very much for the quick response, and I hope you are well.
So I should note that it's not my organisation. I would also note, however, that the 'controversial' issue of illegal pushbacks is absolutely central to the work of Aegean Boat Report and to what's happening in the Aegean right now. Literally every link, aside from the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights and Refugee Convention, specifically name Aegean Boat Report, use its work and data and in most cases quote the organisation extensively. All are published sources and are available to an international audience, and all are specifically independent (of the organisation) media companies for wide public consumption.
I'm really sorry. I don't mean to be annoying, but given that, what can I do to improve this so it can be published?
Thanks so much,
- @Rfrokeeffe: Welcome to the Teahouse. While I cannot speak up as to whether all the references are all reliable, I was drawn toward the second issue:
Links removed.This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
- External links should also not go in the body of the article, and people named in the article are referred to by their surname in subsequent mentions. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi , thanks very much for this. I will of course address the isecond issue, and I will remove the links from the main body.:
- Hi @Tenryuu - I would expect next time a ping since I was explicitly mentioned. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- That is a request that I can do as a courtesy, but after seeing your prompt response here there appears to be no need to have done so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Rfrokeeffe I Googled the group and only see passing mentions, but no significant coverage. Reiterating and adding to what CommanderWaterford posted - please see WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTESSAY. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
~~~~
.). TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Rfrokeeffe I Googled the group and only see passing mentions, but no significant coverage. Reiterating and adding to what CommanderWaterford posted - please see WP:GNG, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOTESSAY. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this:
- That is a request that I can do as a courtesy, but after seeing your prompt response here there appears to be no need to have done so. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Are general and flag officers automatically notable enough for an article?
I recently created articles for retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant generals, which were declined by Nomadicghumakkad due to lack of notability. The drafts are Draft:Robert D. Bishop Jr. and Draft:Bruce A. Wright. In the past, I've created a couple dozen articles similar to these two and they were accepted.
Until February 2021, guidelines given by the WikiProject Military History at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Historical SOLDIER essay stated that holding general or flag officer rank was considered enough to be notable enough for an article.
After having a discussion with the person who declined my article, we both came to the conclusion that current guidelines were unclear whether my articles should be created or not. He said that the new guidelines appear to follow the ones at WP:BIO, but that he felt that those standards were likely too rigorous because the media is unlikely to cover senior military officers unless there is a major event. He suggested that I ask about this topic here.
Essentially, my question is, are military officers of general or flag rank automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article anymore? Or did the change in guidelines in February 2021 make it so that is insufficient to be considered notable? Gunwriter (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Gunwriter. There is no such thing as "automatic notability" on Wikipedia, and the ultimate test of every topic is the extent and quality of the significant coverage that the topic has received in reliable, independent sources. I happen to think that many or most general officers are notable but people who want to write articles about them must do the work to actually identify the reliable sources instead of speculating that they probably exist. Special notability guidelines are intended to identify a topic likely to qualify, but do not guarantee that they actually will qualify. And a notabilty guideline for general officers has never been approved, as far as I know. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's worth emphasising, I think, that notability is nothing to do with "this person has made a valuable contribution to society". It's just the criterion that allows us to establish a narrow-enough scope for the project that we're working on, when every article takes up volunteer maintenance time (e.g. in reverting vandals). I don't like the full listing of "Education" and "Military assignments" because Wikipedia biographies shouldn't look like CVs or listings on a personal website. What we need reliable sources for is really to explain which parts of the figures' education and military careers they are best-known for or were most impactful in or in which they brought some new or unique perspective. I'm not seeing notability from the sources given, so whether the topics are notable depends on whether other sources exist. — Bilorv (talk) 13:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Incoherent message
N MMM MM,M M LAIKUANCHAO (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- LAIKUANCHAO, your (short) list of contributions suggests that you're having lots of fun. It's not clear that you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia; but if you do, you may wish to ask questions here about this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Help to remove article from my sandbox
Hello kindly l want to create another article from my sandbox but l have article waiting for review what am l suppose to do this the article ( john kiarie waweru )
User:Ngangaesther/sandbox Ngangaesther (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- You can either delete the whole article by editing it, or create a new sandbox. Heart (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ngangaesther. I have moved the page to Draft:John Kiarie Waweru. This is a better location for it from the start. So, while that move has freed up your sandbox, I suggest you don't use it for creating another draft, but create your next draft directly as a draft, in the format
[[Draft:Name of Subject]]
. Meanwhile, your post indicates you have submitted it for review but you have not. To do so, post at the top of the page and save this code:{{subst:Submit}}
. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)- Hi again Ngangaesther. In this edit you did not add
{{subst:Submit}}
to the page and save. You added it to the edit summary and saved, and so the page remains unsubmitted for review.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again Ngangaesther. In this edit you did not add
need review of edits: 2601:441:4780:320:A45D:2D50:225A:BFFE
need review of:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:441:4780:320:A45D:2D50:225A:BFFE ..... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @0mtwb9gd5wx: They seem ok to me. If you disagree, you can revert the edits and discuss it on the article's talk page. See WP:BRD RudolfRed (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @0mtwb9gd5wx: The edit summaries seem to me to overstate the case (slightly insulting to previous authors, and the previous version was not "grammatically incorrect"), but I think the new phrasings are improvements. Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:18 Sun 23, AEST) 23:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I am a 30/500 user but I still haven not been designated an "extended confirmed" user
I have had this account for more than 30 days. As of writing this question, I have exactly 500 edits. Based on the article below, I thought this meant I would be automatically be designated an "extended confirmed" user.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Extended_confirmed_users
I've logged in and out, tried a different browser, all that jazz. I still cannot edit articles that are extended confirmed protected, and the only user group I'm in is still just "autoconfirmed user".
Is there a delay? My 500th edit was over 24 hours ago. The above article mentions nothing about a delay and describes the process as automatic.
Do some of my edits not count? The above article makes no mention of certain edits not counting. The only thing it says about this sort of concern is that even deleted edits (of which I have none) do count.
Is this a glitch?
Is the problem something else I haven't considered? Paco2718 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Update: After posting this (my original post here was my 501st edit), my account is now extended autoconfirmed. If anyone can offer an explanation, cool. Otherwise, feel free to remove this post. I may do so myself if no one offers an explanation.
- Do not remove posts from Teahouse, even your own. David notMD (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft Article
Hello, my draft article got rejected. I'm not too sure how to improve it. Would it be possible for a wikipedia editor to either give me detailed instructions or edit it themselves? I hope that's not too much to ask of you. I assume my draft article will be visible on my talk page. Thank you in advance! Maahir S (talk) 06:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Maahir. I assume that you are talking about Draft:Kiran Bir Sethi. The references are all bare URLs which are definitely suboptimal for reviewers. Start by fleshing them out per Referencing for beginners. But many of those URLs are links to sources that are not reliable, so eliminate those. The phrase "thought leader" is mumbo jumbo that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and is a big red flag for reviewers. "Global luminary" is a similar overtly promotional marketing and advertising phrase that signals to a reviewer, "decline this draft ASAP". "Key influencer" is a similar phase that signals that a draft is an advertisement. Wikipedia is not a venue to crank out promotional garbage about various people. It is a neutral encyclopedia with standards. "Unenthused with the system, Kiran decided to curate her own school." Gimme a break. That is not how an encyclopedia article should be written. Clean up your draft radically, and remove 100% of the advertising and marketing. Is anything left after you do that? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Orh and oad
Sir oad are rajputs of odisha and the sons of Raja bhagirathi rajput. Someone is changing our history and giving false statement about us the person name is chariotrider555. Kindly help us thank you Rohitsinghoad (talk) 06:48, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Rohitsinghoad. Caste warriors are not welcome on Wikipedia. Spend some time studying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Understanding and following those carefully is the key to success in editing Wikipedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- At Orh, your edits have been reverted (reversed) by several editors. The place for a discussion is at Talk:Orh. There are previous discussions there, so also read those. David notMD (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
need your guidance
am kind confused l wanted to ask for review on my article but l can only publish it
Ngangaesther/James Mathenge Kanini Ngangaesther (talk) 07:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: James Mathenge Kanini Maproom (talk) 08:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ngangaesther, the article has to demonstrate notability. Currently it does not. -- Hoary (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Category display at the bottom of pages
What in the world happened to them? They just got enlarged horrendously! Did I miss a CSS change or this is a bug? 125.167.116.83 (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- It's a known problem. See this Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Font_sizes_all_over_the_place Follow up Apparently it has been fixed but you'll have to wait for it to bubble through the system. - X201 (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
How to change article name? List of musicians using Amharic in their music to List of musicians using Amharic vocals
Good day, question i created a article Draft:List of Amharic musicians. A reviewer changed the title to List of musicians using Amharic in their music and then approved the submission. I'm glad the page got approved, but i think a better/shorter title would be, List of musicians using Amharic vocals that way you remove in their music which unnecessary, since musicians is already in the title. So my question is, can the title be changed, and where to ask for it? Thank you Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Dawit S Gondaria, seems like Fuhghettaboutit moved the article. Since they're active here, I can ping them for reasonings as I have now. Panini!🥪 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Definitely an improvement, thank you very much! @@Maproom: Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Endorsements Box
I am currently in somewhat of an edit war on 2022 New York gubernatorial election. While there are five candidates running for the Republican nomination, only one, Lee Zeldin, has been road tripping and actively campaigning. He has picked up endorsements from a handful of county chairs, U.S. Representatives and the former Secretary of State. Whenever I try to put an endorsement box, I have gotten my edits removed by the same user for a few reasons. First, I was told that I was not having a neutral point of view, after that, it was that my articles were not reputable since they were local sources (what national papers comment on county endorsements in the first place??), and now, I am told to wait until other candidates have endorsements before putting the correct box in place.
The article itself says "Nick Langworthy has stated that the party intends to pick the GOP gubernatorial candidate in June of 2021". Considering that is the end of May, I would like to put this information on the page. How can I make the appropriate edits without getting banned as I have been threatened?
Zeldin is the only candidate with endorsements, and the selection process supposedly happens next month, so I do not think it is wise to wait for other candidates who are not the frontrunner to get endorsements written by big papers to put the frontrunner's endorsements in. I hope this makes sense. Capisred (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, Capisred. The proper thing to do to avoid edit warring is discuss the matter—I see there's some discussion at Talk:2022 New York gubernatorial election#3 small sources re-added regarding "Zeldin endorsements" but if someone disputes your changes then you should be discussing only, and not edit the article in the meantime. Continuing to revert just makes people annoyed and treat you less respectfully, which in turn makes it much less likely you will be able to make any improvement to the article. A revert with no edit summary like this is definitely not acceptable, because it doesn't progress the conversation in any way, and it will come across as very rude. It seems to me that you don't understand the other person's point of view, as questions like
what national papers comment on county [endorsements] in the first place??
miss the point of what they are trying to tell you, so you would do better to learn what they actually think before asserting that your opinion is better than theirs. — Bilorv (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think my opinion is better than theirs, I actually think it is worse. I was told to establish a consensus on the article's talk page, and I posted an explanation and waited a couple of days but got no response from anybody. I just tried to bring up the sense of urgency (due to the selection process being less than a month away) on the talk page under another user's section, so maybe I can get some positive input there and progress some conversation that warrants a response. Thank you! Capisred (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Capisred: thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, because perhaps my wording at the end was a little bit rude: when you revert without an edit summary, the subtext you're conveying (whether you mean it or not) is "my opinion is better than yours". If you don't get feedback after starting a discussion, which happens a lot and can be frustrating, you need to look at the next place to escalate it to. It seems like you've found one that could be relevant. Some others: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics (same project, a level up); Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (if the question is specifically "is this source reliable for this information?"); Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. You can just leave a note "Please see the discussion at [X page] about [this topic]" or you can start a discussion there (though mind not to make it harder to follow by spreading non-trivial discussion across multiple pages). — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Accident
Hello Wikipedia I have made a mistake which I regret, accidentally I might have posted some names into an article by accident while using my monitor thinking it went to my best friend as he wanted to know more about my friends, therefore, I instantly deleted them and my question is Will this have any repercussions or can I just delete my account and be done with this story as I know it is Illegal therefore I am regretting this decision CyberAquila (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking here, CyberAquila. All edits are public unless suppressed by a trusted volunteer—you can see them by clicking "View history" from an article page—however, it's unlikely that many people would look there or see it, aside from any editors monitoring the page. I've requested oversight to delete the edits from the page history (if any admin reads this beforehand, you can WP:CRD#4 it). — Bilorv (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora
Hi! I was looking for some assistance on improving the Agreed Measures article to hopefully have it upgraded from a stub ASAP for my University of Sydney course! Any advice/tips would be much appreciated! Bambixie (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bambixie Given improvements to article, I upgraded classification from Stub (dating back to 2007) to B-class, and changed importance from mid to high. Kudos for your quality work. David notMD (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, B-class looks like the right choice. For feedback, Bambixie, I'd say making the lead as simple and accessible to a non-expert reader is the only thing I can suggest. Thanks for your work here—I've seen a lot of student editor assignments and a lot result in only small tinkerings, but this is really useful and I think one of the three best student expansions I've ever seen. — Bilorv (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Portal:COVID-19
Hello, can someone take a look at the references section? There is a CS1 error: unsupported parameter. I would do it, but unfortunately wouldn't know where to start. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Lotje: An error like that indicates that a template for the Citation Style 1 is used but with a parameter that this template does not support. You need to check which reference generates the error and then look at the wikitext which parameters are used. At his point, I see no error message like that, so it might already have been fixed. See Help:CS1 errors for more information. Regards SoWhy 14:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @SoWhy: thanks for the advise. You are correct, it is no longer in the Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter Lotje (talk) 15:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Uneditable page?
Hello again. Those who've read my previous entries may be aware that I try to extend Swedish lists of tv series for kids and young adults. I was about to get started, but at one page I can't edit, and I was hoping someone could help me solve why.
Unfortunately, I cannot upload any helpful images. But if you visit the first link below, you can see that the page is editable. But if you visit the second link below, you'll see that the other page is not editable, for some reason. I don't know why, but if it could be made editable somehow, it would be very helpful.
(In the first link, please scroll down to section five, titled 'Program'. In the second link, please scroll down to section two, titled 'Artiklar i kategorin "Barn- och ungdomsprogram i Sveriges Television"')
Any help would be very much appreciated, so thanks in advance!
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVT_Barn#Program_som_visats_i_SVT_Barn
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Barn-_och_ungdomsprogram_i_Sveriges_Television Denkichu (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- DenkichuThe second page is a category page - you don't add information to such pages by editing them, but by adding the relevant category at the bottom of the relevant article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
How can I improve this submission?
Hello, so I just submitted a draft (Draft:Johnny Yin) for submission a few minutes ago. Most of my information is from the Chinese Wikipedia page, however, since it isn't sourced/referenced, I deleted some paragraphs. What do you suggest or advise to improve this submission? I asked this in the WikiProject Afc help desk, but I think that wasn't the right place to ask. Thanks Seantseng918 (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- If you translated it from another language Wikipedia, you need to provide proper attribution, or it is a copyright violation. Please see the documentation of {{translated}} and add that template to the draft talk page per instructions. Make a dummy edit to the draft itself, to note in the edit summary that the draft is a translation of [provide link to the chinese article]. See WP:TFOLWP. Since your subject is a musician, the draft must meet the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ANYBIO. See those guidelines and try and demonstrate at least one of those has been clearly met. If it's not an obvious case, you can leave a note at the draft's talk page for the reviewer, explaining why the topic is notable. As for the general improvement of the article, you have to look for reliable sources and add further information that you find in them. Make sure every claim in the article is supported by inline citation to reliable sources, which is a requirement for biographies on living people. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Changing Password
Hello, Guys, May I get help for how to change the password. The current password is not safe enough and I would like to use a stronger password Mighty Asgardian616 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Under "Preferences" (at top of page), there is a button there you can click to change your password. RudolfRed (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleting a Draft
I would like to delete the article that I currently have in draft status ("Randy Bishop") and start over. Can you please advise how I can do this?
Thanks. 70.77.206.61 (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- As long as you are the only contributer to the draft, you may put {{db-g7}} at the top and an admin will be along shortly to delete it. Please dont forget to login before doing that. NW1223 | Howl at me 16:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources
is indulge express is a reliable source for Wikipedia? Ramesh012 (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Ramesh012, and welcome to the Teahouse. WP:RSP says of The Indian Express
The Indian Express is considered generally reliable under the news organizations guideline
. However, that does not necessarily mean that its Indulge Express section is regarded as reliable. I suggest asking at WP:RSN - and it is helpful to indicate what kind of information you are looking to support, as reliability sometimes depends on this. --ColinFine (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
On Chai's newest record "Wink"
Hello! This question may seem kind of trivial, but I was wondering if someone could help add a page for Japanese rock quartet Chai's newly released record WINK. I've been excited for a WINK page as I am both a fan of Chai and editing for Wikipedia! I would thoroughly like to assist in making this page happen if anyone wants to help get it started.
With sincerity, Quail & Metal Quail & Metal (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Quail & Metal, and welcome to the Teahouse. You might find somebody here willing to work with you on that, but probably not. You might have better luck asking at a suitable WikiProject, such as WP:ROCK or WP:JAPAN. but the most valuable thing you can do if you want this article to happen is to start doing the legwork, and find the reliable independent sourcs which talk about the record: these are a non-negotiable necessity for an article, so if you cannot find them (because it is TOOSOON) then you'll know to shelve the project for the time being. (I see there are a couple of references given in Chai (band), but I don't know whether any of them meet the triple requirement of being reliable, independent of the band, and having WP:significant coverage of the record rather than just being routine announcements. -ColinFine (talk) 20:35, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Paolo giani margi page my contribution
I have added yesterday my article with a lot of sources and link, but the control remove it. I can't understand why? Is there possibility for me to add my contribution? The sources are not good enough? 91.80.22.86 (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any sources you added to verify the edits were true. See WP:Tutorial. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:43, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- (e/c) Unless you are User:Gomba80, who made a reverted contribution to Paolo Giani Margi, I don't see any other contribution under this IP. If you are the mentioned user, you should discuss such huge changing to an article on its Talkpage beforehand. --Maresa63 Talk 16:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maresa63 They made 1 big edit but it was 100% unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @User:TigerScientist, you're of course right! I didn't mention it, because you already did 😉. --Maresa63 Talk 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maresa63 They made 1 big edit but it was 100% unsourced. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Oy! At Paolo Giani Margi, a large amount of content has been added eight times and reverted eight times because of a complete failure to follow referencing procedure. Seven of those were by IP addresses, mostly with no references, then the most recent by User:Gomba80. If you are indeed Gomba 80, I recommend you study Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, and then practice in your sandbox creating portions of what you want to add to the article. When properly written and referenced, copy a portion into the article. Add n Edit summary in the space at the bottom to describe what you did. I add that the article was created by User:Lugnuts, who is the editor who has been reverting your improper additions, so you may want to leave a comment on Lugnuts Talk page, describing your intentions. It is important that all statements of fact about PGM be verified by references. David notMD (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
how to revert newly-created template
I would presume one "reverts" the creation of a new template by deleting it, but I don't really know how to do that.
The template to be deleted is {{New link}}
. (This exercise has at least served to make me aware of the {{tlx}}
template). ;-) Fabrickator (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fabrickator, you have to be an administrator to delete pages. I have tagged the page for speedy deletion under criterion G7, or author requests deletion. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Sungodtemple: To be clear, {{New link}}
was created by User:Caferkiyak1985, not by me, in conjunction with the creation of spam content. See Special:Contributions/Caferkiyak1985. Fabrickator (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Visual Editor do not work in Wikipedia in English
Simple question. I would like to know for what reason Visual Editor does not work in English Wikipedia but in the rest of Wikipedias [German, French, Italian, Spanish] actually do.
--Mauriziok (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Mauriziok (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by not working? It works fine for me. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mauriziok: Which page are you attempting to edit? The visual editor isn't enabled everywhere. (Notable places where it isn't enabled are all talk pages(including noticeboards) , pages which contain something else than Wikitext, and I believe the Help namespace.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TigerScientist: @Victor Schmidt: It doesn't show that option in any kind of page, a-n-y. A mean, I can only see the option [Edit] between [Read] and [View history]. I see that I can also press [alt-shift-e] to activate Edit but if I press [alt-shift-v] to see if might work Virtual Edit the page doesn't respond, nothing happens. I don't know what is going on here. I repeat, this problem only happens here in English, in the others Wikipedia works perfectly. So... --Mauriziok (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mauriziok: Check your preferences. Under "Editing" make sure that the checkbox "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is not checked, and that the dropdown labeled "Editing mode:" below it is set to "show me both tabs" (You can of course also set it to something else, but each editor has its (dis-)adventages, and I believe haveing the ability to choose makes it easier) Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Victor Schmidt: Problem solved. All right, perfect. I saw wich was the problem. Thanks (Y). --Mauriziok (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mauriziok: Check your preferences. Under "Editing" make sure that the checkbox "Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta" is not checked, and that the dropdown labeled "Editing mode:" below it is set to "show me both tabs" (You can of course also set it to something else, but each editor has its (dis-)adventages, and I believe haveing the ability to choose makes it easier) Victor Schmidt (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TigerScientist: @Victor Schmidt: It doesn't show that option in any kind of page, a-n-y. A mean, I can only see the option [Edit] between [Read] and [View history]. I see that I can also press [alt-shift-e] to activate Edit but if I press [alt-shift-v] to see if might work Virtual Edit the page doesn't respond, nothing happens. I don't know what is going on here. I repeat, this problem only happens here in English, in the others Wikipedia works perfectly. So... --Mauriziok (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mauriziok: Which page are you attempting to edit? The visual editor isn't enabled everywhere. (Notable places where it isn't enabled are all talk pages(including noticeboards) , pages which contain something else than Wikitext, and I believe the Help namespace.) Victor Schmidt (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
MW previews
On wikipedia, when you hover over an article link, it shows a preview. How do you do that? I have a wiki on Miraheze (which uses MediaWiki and updated MW in october 2020) and I want to do the same thing. 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 16:56, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- If I'm understanding this correctly, shouldn't it do the preview automatically? I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- TigerScientist, I don't know what you mean by "I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview" 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- By preview, I mean this: 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- It should automatically create a preview like the picture. Your page does not have a preview? That is very very strange. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 17:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- By preview, I mean this: 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:15, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- TigerScientist, I don't know what you mean by "I didn't create a preview for my articles and it has a preview" 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 17:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, LightningComplexFire, what you're seeing is the Popups extension, which implements the Page Preview functionality. In order to us this feature, you would have to make sure that that extension is installed on your MW. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @LightningComplexFire: Popups is listed at https://meta.miraheze.org/wiki/Extensions#Other_Extensions so you should be able to enable it on your wiki. See Special:Version for the current extensions on a wiki. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:02, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Fails WP:NLIST
I recently submitted a page on [of Development Zone of Myanmar]. This page was rejected with Fails WP:NLIST. I cited from only a legal document of Myanmar Government. I cited the documents in both English and Burmese Language. And I am wondering why it is flagged with Notability#Stand-alone_lists Thanks. Punwath (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Punwath, see WP:GNG. Lists still need to have a few independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Your draft, unfortunately, has none. Sungodtemple (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Sandbox - Stub Article Suggestion
Hello - I'm doing research on Australian film and TV. I have posted a stub suggestion in my sandbox. How do I get feedback on it? Thank you! Ajcwritwiki (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see any stub suggestion in your sandbox. Could you clarify? Sungodtemple (talk) 17:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy: Content appears to be at User:Ajcwritwiki/sandbox. You had also created it at the Wikipedia Sandbox, which is frequently blanked. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Feedback: Too many of your refs confirm he has acted in stuff, but are not at-length descriptions about him. Rather, in-name-only mentions. Given that in "Between Two Worlds" he 'plays' a brain-dead, potential heart transplant donor, I don't imagine that reviews are going to elaborate on his acting. David notMD (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy: Content appears to be at User:Ajcwritwiki/sandbox. You had also created it at the Wikipedia Sandbox, which is frequently blanked. David notMD (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi
GordonFunnyRedBananaHatAmongus (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Uh hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonFunnyRedBananaHatAmongus (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi. This is the teahouse where editors ask questions. Next time ask a question about editing. Have fun! TigerScientist Chat > contribs 18:50, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Paolo giani margi page someone expert could helpme
Some one who is just very good with the editing could edit for me? 91.80.22.86 (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- This article history shows a sorry story of a struggle with Lugnuts over what has alternated between a mere stub about Paolo Giani Margi and a partially/obscurely referenced and verbose portrait of the same person. I agree with Lugnuts. Possibly you are related to Gomba 80; but even if you aren't, please read the welcome message posted on Gomba 80's talk page. (And if you are Gomba 80, please make sure that you're logged in as Gomba 80 before you edit.) Here's a sample reference of what Lugnuts reverted: 10^ Paolo Giani Margi on the book “ ABC of the Sport Horse” By Giulia Iannone, Progetto Cultura, being updated, ISBN 978-88-6092-733-0. No such book exists. The book possessing ISBN 978-88-6092-733-0 is instead Iannone's L'ABC del cavallo sportivo; but how is Margi "on" it, and in what sense is it "being updated"? Is Margi perhaps quoted within it? It's a book of over three hundred pages; on which page(s) within this large book can this information be found? And no, you don't type "10^"; instead, you insert a reference as it should be inserted,[1] and then the Mediawiki software used by Wikipedia will do the formatting and numbering for you. -- Hoary (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- ^ Like this.
- When I wrote the comment above, I hadn't noticed the presence of an earlier thread, #Paolo giani margi page my contribution. If you want to ask further questions, please ask them in that thread or in this one; please do not start yet another thread. -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I've tried to communicate with the editor (see User talk:109.52.248.24), but they jump from one IP address to another, with some of them being blocked. Clearly this isn't how to write an article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
TWA makes my head hurt
So long story short, I found out about WP:TWA, I think it's cool, I get stuck because I already made a userpage, I do so much testing and find the problem. Ok so when you create a account, does a bot or a editor give you the join the teahouse or TWA notification on your talk page. If that is a bot, why when I made this account, it didn't send to me. It is just frustrating I won't ever ever be able to complete the adventure on this account. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TigerScientist: there isn't a bot for recommending The Wikipedia Adventure to people. There is HostBot, which automatically welcomes some editors - others are manually welcomed instead (the reason for this is to avoid spamming every new user with talkpage messages - only editors who have edited for a bit and haven't been manually welcomed get the automatic welcome). However, it doesn't recommend The Wikipedia Adventure.
- Also, you should be able to do TWA even with an existing userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Elli thank you. I have done so much testing and maybe it is just me but I can't (I have already had this conversation). Is there a reason why Hostbot won't reccomend TWA? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- nevermind TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Elli thank you. I have done so much testing and maybe it is just me but I can't (I have already had this conversation). Is there a reason why Hostbot won't reccomend TWA? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TigerScientist: indeed, I just tried and you can complete the first adventure. Just make sure to leave an edit summary alongside the edit you make to your userpage. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:19, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tried again and added a summary and guess what! it didn't work. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TigerScientist: could you possibly post a video (screen recording)? I'm kinda confused how you're getting stuck. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't downloaded a screen recording thing and you know this conversation is getting way too long over some worthless virtual badges on a page so I'll just not talk about TWA again. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @TigerScientist: could you possibly post a video (screen recording)? I'm kinda confused how you're getting stuck. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:00, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- I tried again and added a summary and guess what! it didn't work. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Antarctica in World War II
I have finally submitted my large draft Draft:Antarctica in World War II to Articles for creation. I believe that this one would be best to go through the review stage. I am not looking for an early review, I would just like some help with some formatting as I find the Argentine expedition section a bit off. If anyone could quickly help with that section it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance and happy editing. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gandalf the Groovy: Only thing I noticed in the Argentine section was that the two subsections were at different heading levels, which I fixed. Hope it helps. RudolfRed (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@RudolfRed Thanks! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Refs 7, 8 and 41 are URLs. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Scribal errors and printing issues
Good early afternoon Teahouse! I am lately interested in the article Typographical error. The article deals mostly with what is in modern days commonly called a typo, but scribal error and printing error redirect to that same article. I believe the philologic and technological (e.g. unprinted letters at the borders of a page or similar) aspects would merit either better treatment in this article or a separate one. I tried to improve the philologcal aspect, which is somewhat more interesting to me, but I had some troubles finding good sources for both and thought that bringing up the matter in relevant projects or to editors more familiar with these subjects would be helpful. The main problem is that I can't find a project that's really relevant. Any advice or links to articles that already deal with these specific aspects that I may be missing are welcomed. Personuser (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Most (not all) WikiProjects are more or less moribund. I understand what you're proposing to write about but am no expert on the matter (and have no knowledge of any centuries-old language or handwriting convention), so can't help. I'd look for articles on related subjects and look through their recent histories for the names of editors whose contributions have been particularly well-informed and constructive. (Don't be misled by mere numbers of edits.) Contact one editor on their own talk page. Don't contact a second editor until you've got a response from the first, or until a couple of weeks have gone by with no response. And ignore this suggestion if somebody manages to suggest a promising WikiProject: the talk page of a relevant WikiProject showing signs of life is indeed a better place to ask. -- Hoary (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Personuser: You could start a discussion at WP:TYPO project talk page, perhaps other editors in that project will share your same interests. RudolfRed (talk) 23:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the suggestions. I already checked a bit related articles for refs and productive editors and will take a closer look and wait for eventual other answers before bothering someone (some articles are really good, but probably mostly written years ago). I am slowly learning that WikiProjects aren't always as promising as they look, but activity can be easily checked. Some errors from centuries old copyist seem quite similar to modern day errors by random people on the internet (or by myself), but it's hard to find a source addressing the subject outside of a specific field, which is probably a common problem with "multidisciplinary" subjects. For topics related to the printing process I'm a bit more afraid the subject may be covered elsewhere under some differet name and in a more general or unrelated to meaning way. Members of WP:TYPO surely have a lot of personal experience about this, which isn't acceptable, but some of them may know about (recent?) relevant sources, so it makes sense to drop a discrete message. Personuser (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Personuser:I think a case can be made for a "Scribal error" article that is complementary to "Typographical error". The two may have some overlap, and make reference to common features, such as to haplography and dittography. But if you imagine "scribal error" having a starting point of ancient manuscripts and working outwards from that focus; and "typographical error" have a starting point of, say, post-Gutenberg printing; then that is probably sufficiently different for a separate article. The proposed "scribal error" might well, for instance, additionally have a subsection of what ancient copiers and scribes did when they made a mistake in copying holy texts (e.g. leaving them to decay in the desert). Why not consider trying a Draft:Scribal error? Feline Hymnic (talk) 14:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I concur with Feline Hymnic and note that the redirect Scribal error was originally created with the edit summary "redirect to treatment of topic, pending fuller treatment here". One thing that might (or might not) be treated in such an article is cases that, while perhaps not errors in the strict sense, nevertheless resulted in the transmission of corrupt texts—such as the migration of glosses into the texts themselves. Deor (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I see some benefits in treating both subjects togheter as well as a case for a separate article, which can be addressed in different ways, but discussing an eventual split on Talk:typographical error if/when there's more material seems a more natural way to deal with this. Actually some modern aspects could also have a better treatment (and probably should if the scribal part expands, I doubt there aren't any good studies on the frequency of common typos or similar in internet/publishing/schooling, if you know where to look). The fuzzy meaning of the term(s) somewhat complicates the matter and may have discouraged some editors. Personuser (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Question regarding citing sources using footnotes
I received this notice: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes."
However, I did add footnote citations. I need help understanding what I did wrong per Wiki standards.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Glen_Lerner
Thanks in advance for your input and help.
JDL-author (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)JDL-author JDL-author (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JDL-author: you have this
At the age of 5 Lerner’s father went to prison for double murder and was not released until 1989. They remained close until his death. Growing up with a father in prison had a profound effect on Lerner and he attributes it to making him the fighter that he is as his father’s incarceration led to serious financial issues and the family living on welfare.
with no citations. Same in the Philanthropy section. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)- Some of the refs are interviews. What Glenn says about himself in not considered verification of content. David notMD (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Use of the terms "Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria" and "RSD"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphoria
Hi team, I don't really know how to do the editing and what have you, but I did notice when looking up "dysphoria" as part of a discussion with the moderators of an ADHD forum that the terms Rejection Sensitive Dysphoria and RSD were linked with ADHD, which just happened to be the very point of our discussion. In short, this term was coined by a sole psychologist, and as far as we've been able to research it has not been independently verified, peer reviewed or otherwise cited other than back to the original piece it was coined in. We believe that, while our fellows do suffer from emotional dysregulation and do tend to be sensitive to rejection, the use of this term invalidates other, more serious conditions and usage should be discouraged until such time as more rigorous research becomes available. How would we best approach this?
- D. Leon Adams 49.227.127.192 (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- The first place to bring it up would be Talk:Dysphoria. If there's no reaction, or if you think that the reaction is underinformed or otherwise unsatisfactory, you might advertise the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology. If nothing much still happens, there are other avenues. -- Hoary (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- My opinion is be bold. RSD is mentioned at the Dysphoria article as being an aspect of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but at that article, there is no mention of RSD. Based on this, I recommend deleting all mention of RSD at Dysphoria. If an editor reverts this deletion, then the proper step after that is to start a discussion on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD: - I'm surprised it's not brought up on the ADHD article; I wouldn't consider it an obscure symptom by any means. I hope some verifiable sources pop up in the future to warrant its inclusion. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- At PubMed (U.S. Library Medicine) I see a lot of lit about Rejection Sensitivity, a bit about RS in context of ADHD, but no mentions of "Rejection Sensitivity Dysphoria". David notMD (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @David notMD: - I'm surprised it's not brought up on the ADHD article; I wouldn't consider it an obscure symptom by any means. I hope some verifiable sources pop up in the future to warrant its inclusion. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 10:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- My opinion is be bold. RSD is mentioned at the Dysphoria article as being an aspect of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but at that article, there is no mention of RSD. Based on this, I recommend deleting all mention of RSD at Dysphoria. If an editor reverts this deletion, then the proper step after that is to start a discussion on the Talk page. David notMD (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Username
Can we use images in username signature? Powerful Karma (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Powerful Karma: No, see WP:SIGIMAGE. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Two darts
In the last year I have worked two drafts List of Studio C episodes and Rugrats (2021 TV series) but there be there be other drafts for these articles I just wondering if these are isolated cases or have this happened a lot Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Fanoflionking. It's not an uncommon occurrence, and because of that, in a variety of places where we talk about creating articles, drafts, etc. we try to insure against this taking place. For instance, the last sentence of the first paragraph of Help:Your first article is: "Please search Wikipedia first to make sure that an article does not already exist on the subject." Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Removing content added by own.
Can a editor remove the content added by him even two years later of addition and would he not receive any warning for removal of content. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 11:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi ExclusiveEditor. Context is so important here, it's imposible to hazard a guess – I can postulate multiple scenarios where this would be absolutely appropriate and absolutely the exact opposite, so you would need to inject specificity into this. If this is about something that actually occurred, what was it; if not, propose the scenario (including what content, in what article, with what edit summary). Sorry, but it's really that variable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Think in the article of a company, a editor adds history of that company with good sources. Then after two years he removes the context added by him saying that he had added that context two years ago and now he wants to remove the context added by him. This is a fictional scenario not real. Also I would like to specify that he only removed the context added by him and not of others. ExclusiveEditor Notify Me! 11:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Going with your premises, that the edit summary indicates no plausible rationale (e.g., "...the sources don't actually verify what I wrote here"), and the content, besides being reliably sourced, appears quite relevant and properly written – such that no one would is likely to think something like "bad rationale, but this really doesn't belong as a matter of editorial discretion, because X" – treat this at base no differently than if an editor blanked sourced content because they wanted to (you would "treat this differently", insofar as the edit summary you leave, but not in the result, which would be a revert). There is no dispensation for self-removal, and it is a fundamental precept here that when we edit we give up all rights but for our free copyright ownership, requiring suitable credit attribution upon reuse. In other words, the answer to the original quesiton posed is, "no". Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:01, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Typo in a “Blocked” article
Is it best to just wait out those types of articles? JGrammerSecure7 (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @JGrammerSecure7: Welcome to the Teahouse. I'm not sure what you mean by "waiting out" (as some articles have been indefinitely protected), but you're welcome to leave an edit request on the article's talk page stating the typo found (providing the sentence it's found in would be helpful) and what it should be changed into. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
I New Wikipedia Author. I Have create a User Profile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amitava_Nag. After the publish my profile showing error. Please help us. NKwisi01 (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC) Nitin
- NKwisi01, Wikipedia does not accept "profiles". It has unbiased articles, reporting what reliable independent sources have said about the subject. The sources currently cited in Amitava Nag report what Nag has written or said, and so are not independent. The article is in danger of being deleted, unless someone can find and cite some independent sources. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- (e/c) Hi NKwisi01. This is not an error. The headline text you excerpt comes from the articles for deletion discussion banner, informing anyone seeing the article that it is being considered for deletion, with a link to the deletion discussion being held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMITAVA NAG. You can explain there your reasons as to why the article should not be deleted (I recommend reading Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions before visiting that AfD). One overarching tip is that such grounds for keeping this article should be based in applicable policies and guidelines, such as that the subject is actually notable, based on the existence of suitable reliable, secondary, independent sources that treat the topic in substantive detail, and that the subject thus warrants an encyclopedia article. Please note that your use of the word "profile" can just be a manner of speaking, but it is often used when people have a misunderstanding about Wikipedia, conflating it with social media; and it often correlates with the writing of promotional articles that read as commercials for the subject, rather than neutral encyclopedia articles, summarizing (in proper paraphrase) what the world had previously written about the subject, in the types of sources I referred to previously. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Rejection of article
The article on Abdulkareem Moh'd Jamiu Asuku was rejected for publication for "not having enough coverage". This to me is not correct. The article cited independent sources and linked them appropriately. Some of the articles I saw on the Wikipedia do not even have such coverage.
Please can it be reconsidered and published? Shadrachlaw (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Abdulkareem Moh’d Jamiu. Clovermoss (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Shadrachlaw: Welcome to the Teahouse. The reviewer is stating that the references used do not provide demonstrate notability of the subject. Another issue is that the citations are being done improperly; please see WP:EASYREFBEGIN for help on how to properly cite. The Philanthropy section is also inappropriate for an encyclopedia, which is why I'm assuming the reviewer mentioned a tone issue in the draft. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:24, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I want to edit a biased section in a page
Courtesy link: Shlomo Rechnitz
I discovered what I think is a negatively biased section while I was researching something else. So I investigated that, made what I considered to be changes that made the entry neutral and someone else came and undid them. I wrote back but got no response - maybe he didn't see it or is too busy? I'm not happy that the entry makes Wikipedia into a hit job on a living person, so I want to change it. - it is the worst thing I've ever noticed since I started using Wikipedia - I think that was the end of 2001.
And in that page, a Wikipedia note says this: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."
So now to my question.
Should I write a note in the Talk page of that entry, announcing my intention to do this and provide evidence and ask for comments?
(I have already written that, but although I've corrected a lot of things on Wikipedia over the years, they've all been minor tweaks, so I don't recall ever using a Talk page, but I saw someone else do it. And I've never asked a question here before.)
So what's the right protocol and how can I know that anyone will see it?
What's the best way to see if anyone is interested in helping to correct what I consider is egregious bias. Photoloop (talk) 14:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Photoloop, you removed extensive well-referenced content from the article, in an apparent attempt to whitewash it of criticism of the subject. Smntstatus restored it all, rightly in my opinion. If you think that the criticism is unwarranted, and can provide references that outweigh those already cited, you should argue your case on the article's talk page. Maproom (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Maproom, for commenting and for confirming that I should put my suggestions/arguments into the relevant Talk page. Yes, I did remove those items because they applied to the company, not the person, in a page about a living person. Surely that extensive chunk of information should be in a page about the company? It would have been good if the rigor applied to my edits had been applied to the additions of that information.
- When the subject of a BLP owns a company, what the company does is relevant to their biography.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Cant Figure out Userboxes
Yeah so I want to add userboxes to my talk page but I cant figure out how to do thme — Preceding unsigned comment added by WarInTheDesert (talk • contribs) 15:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- You'll find advice at WP:Userboxes. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Note that userboxes would go on your user page, not on your user talk page. --David Biddulph (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Coordinates displaced
Why has the "coordinates" display at the top of article pages been moved down so it overlaps infoboxes and maintenance boxes? It is very confusing. For example see Guildford where it overlaps the disambiguation note. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Murgatroyd49: This is being worked on. See (among other discussions) WP:VPT#Coordinates in title dropped down. It's apparently a problem only with the Vector skin, since I use MonoBook and I'm not seeing it. Deor (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- This has persisted since Thursday and is quite annoying on pages like this where the coords are practically overlapping the infobox image. This may also be related to several font sizes being altered the same day: Category text, redirect notes, etc.
- @Deor: Should it be recommended that users switch from Vector to MonoBook if they are tired of seeing these errors? --DB1729 (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
New word
Hello and thanks for having me. I would like to add a new word that is commonly use among friends and is catching up and would like it to be found in Wikipedia. So when we say it we can refer them to wiki and what it means. Like a slang word. Naningkamot2021 (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Don't do that Naningkamot2021, as it will simply be deleted as per WP:NEOLOGISM - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- A more appropriate site for you might be Urban Dictionary, to which there is a link at the bottom of that article. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.105} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
How to use My Sandbox for creating a new second article
Gentlemen,
I find the old article already there. Can select and delete the contents and go ahead creating a second second new page. Will this effect the first article by any way? Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Valliappan Kannappan: I have reset your sandbox this time. In future, you can use the procedure described at Wikipedia:Redirect#How_to_edit_a_redirect_or_convert_it_into_an_article to remove/edit the redirect left behind by the page move when the sandbox draft was promoted to an article. Victor Schmidt (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
requesting inputs
Hello all,
Many or most wikipedians seem frequently failing to understand when I begin a new article I just want to be inspirer/motivator/coordinator/propeller of that topic and find and motivate other users for article expansion tasks.
Is it possible to have an additional user name? One of the activity I am doing and want to continue doing is of 'article expansion inspirer/motivator/coordinator/propeller
If allowed which user name will be more apt?
- article expansion inspirer
- article expansion motivator
- article expansion coordinator
- article expansion propeller
- Or suggest some thing more apt
thanks
Bookku (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Your goal is to create a start of a draft for someone else to finish? I'm not sure how helpful that is. There is already a huge list at WP:RA of topic ideas that people can work on. RudolfRed (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, Bookku. I'm sure many of us would love to write novels or symphonies, if we could just set them going and somebody else would do the tedious bit of actually writing it. Unfortunately, life doesn't often work like that. It could happen - but if you want it to, it is up to you to enthuse somebody to want to complete what you've started. Good luck. --ColinFine (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- While there can be valid reasons to have more than one account, hence more than on User name, that is never to use both names to work on the same articles. You have a history of starting drafts that are tagged for deletion because you have abandoned them. General advice is reference as you write, and finish what you start. Even if that is to create a valid stub article. There is currently a backlog of more than 5,000 drafts that have been submitted to Articles for Creation. Wikipedia does not need a cohort of unsubmitted drafts, hence the auto-delete process for zombie drafts. David notMD (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Bookku I have mixed feelings about this. There's not much doubt that in the early days of Wikipedia, it was not uncommon for someone to start a stub article about an important topic, and other editors will come along and expand it. I think that happens much less often in recent years. While I will occasionally be pleasantly surprised at a stub article that gets expanded by others, for every one of those I see, I think I can find 99 others that were started as a stub and still remain a stub. While some of this will still occur, I don't feel comfortable encouraging it.
- I do happen to be a big fan of collaboration, although accomplishing it hasn't been as easy as I'd hoped. I recently started User:Sphilbrick/Kamilla_Cardoso, and reached out to in the hopes that I could manage the MediaWiki specific issues, while someone else could help with the text, this experiment isn't working as well as I had hoped. If it works I will turn it into a proper article, but I am deliberately not trying to get a basic stub up, and hope that someone will clean it up. If you really are interested in being a motivator, not creating full-fledged articles, I would say go for it if you can identify collaborators in advance and work with them, but simply dumping a stub article out there and hoping that others will find it in make it better is, in my opinion no longer a recipe for good contributions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
Hi I'm Sumit recently I'm trying to make changes in Banaphar and i only did two edits on that article and one get revert because the source i provide was not reliable in Wikipedia and i ask three times in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that is my source is reliable or not. And one administrator (which i think he/she is baised) talking rudely with me and put the warning to block me in my talk page by reason that I'm doing disruptive and tendentious editing[1] and I'm here to ask that, can i still ask my about my source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or not, that's it.Sumit banaphar (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like you have already received an answer at the noticeboard that your source does not support your claim. RudolfRed (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah,I know that I'm not talking about that i just want to know can i still ask about my source in RSN?Sumit banaphar (talk) 18:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
What do you want to ask about the source that does not support your claim?asked and answered, multiple times. -Roxy . wooF 19:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean can I ask about of any book is reliable or not after this? I am not talking about any book that I have asked about before Sumit banaphar (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sumit banaphar: Since you have already been given a warning about this, no. Work on something else for awhile instead. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Heading text for really old talk page discussions that lack a heading
Sometimes I find ancient 2007-2009 messages on talk pages that have no headings. At one point I just separated them off with a blank heading, but then later (maybe from another user's edits?) I got the idea of giving them a relevant title so other users could quickly know what the topics are. Then I noticed some headings that simply said "Untitled" and found Wikipedia:Talk page layout#Talk page layout, which says to use == Untitled == or == Comments by IP 192.0.2.1 ==. What is best here, and was my previous method of giving relevant titles inherently bad? (I've been putting "Untitled"s more recently.) Undead Shambles (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Undead Shambles: Welcome to the Teahouse. There's nothing wrong with what you're doing. Sometimes I come across new sections on here that lack their own heading, so I usually give a descriptive one and slap an {{FYI}} under it saying that I made it, and not the OP. A suggestion I'd make if you come across multiple untitled sections would be to differentiate them if possible (I usually see people add a number in parentheses at the end). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Tenryuu: Okay, thank you for the tips! :) —Undead Shambles (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
camera2
154.159.238.0 (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, IP user. Did you have a question about using or editing on Wikipedia? RudolfRed (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
List of people with Locked-in Synrdome
- Courtesy link: List of people with locked-in syndrome
I am trying to add my boss who has locked-in syndrome to the above page but it keeps being undone by the same user. I have asked him previously why he considers my boss not notable but he has yet to answer that question. Despite having locked-in syndrome, my boss has started his own company which employees 10 people, myself included - but most importantly he has set up a trust to help other people with locked-in syndrome. This is a REGISTERED charity and yet this user still claims that he is not notable. With all due respect to the great Nick Chisholm, who does appear on the page, I fail to see why he is notable but my boss Howard Wicks is not. I have used sources where Howard is featured as credentials. In any case, if you have to be 'notable' should the page not be renamed to 'List of notable people with locked-in syndrome'? Please can someone indicate what is required to be considered 'notable' and who is the arbiter of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracherama (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bracherama: Hey and welcome to the Teahouse. You can find an overview of our notability criteria at Wikipedia:Notability. Basically, since Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone or everything that exists, we only cover subjects that meet the relevant criteria for notability, usually substantial coverage in reliable sources. As such, all lists of subjects are by default considered to be lists of notable subjects because otherwise we would not cover them. Also, since you are writing about your boss, you have a conflict of interest, so I recommend you read our plain and simple conflict of interest guide before making any further edits about your boss. Regards SoWhy 20:43, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback - bit strange, we have a man who is trying to do good for people with locked-in syndrome, he has started a charity, been in the newspaper, been featured on another charity's website and yet he is not considered notable but just because another person with the same condition is related to a news presenter in NZ and happens to have had a couple of news articles about him in the tabloid press he is more notable? I don't want this to feel like a personal attack on someone I am aware of and greatly admire, but I am just trying to understand. As for conflict of interest, I get that but surely that is not reason enough on it's own, would Stephen Hawking have been taken down if it was his wife who had made the entry? Would he have remained off Wikipedia unless someone who was not working for/ with him or related to him made the entry?
- Not enough is known about locked-in syndrome and not enough is done for those with the condition as a result, that is why I feel it is important for the trust to be featured and yet that is not 'notable' enough for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bracherama (talk • contribs) 21:05, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, Bracherama! (Make sure to sign your messages by adding ~~~~ to the end.) The best course of action due to your conflict of interest would probably be to make an edit request. This lets someone else take a look at the change before it's made to ensure your boss is actually notable. Also, note that other stuff exists here on Wikipedia and comparison to other subjects isn't always a valid argument, and keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't the place to promote a cause. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I'm very new to this. I was not aware of the edit request or I would have done that from the start, so thanks for that. It was not a comparison to another subject, this fell under the same subject as someone else listed was considered notable for appearing in tabloids from what I can see, and having a brother who is a recognised presenter in New Zealand, which is totally irrelevant to the subject. As for promoting a cause, it's not about promoting a cause it is about information, which is what Wikipedia is about right? If I had locked-in syndrome I would be interested in someone who had set up a trust to help people like me. I find it interesting that tabloids are enough to make you notable but actions less so. Well, we have an interview on Tuesday about making a documentary for TV about Howard - maybe he'll be notable enough for Wikipedia then, my boss or not my boss.Bracherama (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia cannot be all information, so it has definitions of notable. Short answer - get an article accepted about your boss, and then he can be added to the list. AND, you have to type four of ~ to 'sign' your comments David notMD (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that David, but in this instance it was more a case of the particular arbiter of that notability, he didn't state why the references and articles I shared were not notable enough, guess he didn't feel the need to. It has been an eye-opener to see how Wikipedia works.Bracherama (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- I will be more clear: An attempt was made by User:WicksHoward to create an article about Howard Wicks. The draft (Draft:Howard Wicks) was declined because the references clearly did not reach Wikipedia's requirements for a biography of a living person (WP:BLP). Separately, WicksHoward and you have attempted to add Howard to the list article, and have been reverted by two different editors (neither being the reviewer who declined the draft), because no article exists about Howard. David notMD (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I am guessing that you and User:WicksHoward are the same person, two accounts. While more than one account is allowed under certain circumstances, both should never be used to edit the same article, in this case the List article. Going forward, use only one account. Multiple accounts is called sockpuppetry, and is grounds for being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Bracherama: Popping in here to add that if you are indeed using two accounts and you are not Howard Wicks, stick to this one, as WicksHoward could be considered impersonation and may end up being blocked per Wikipedia's username policy (relevant subsection). —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 02:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, I am guessing that you and User:WicksHoward are the same person, two accounts. While more than one account is allowed under certain circumstances, both should never be used to edit the same article, in this case the List article. Going forward, use only one account. Multiple accounts is called sockpuppetry, and is grounds for being indefinitely blocked. David notMD (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Howard Wicks has his own account, he has locked in syndrome which means he cannot use his hands as he is paralysed, I started the process under instruction as his personal assistant. This is not a duplicate account, I set my own account up at home to try and iron out the problems, something I undertook in my own time and on my own initiative because I think that what Howard has achieved and is trying to do is notable. Please understand this is a paralysed man and I type for him before you make your judgements. If you look at the original article you will see if differs greatly. This is because the article on Howard Wicks was dictated by him, while the article under my username was one I wrote at home. I'm sorry but this really annoys me, this article is about people who are paralysed and the assumption is that this is a case of sock puppetry, it's as if you can't recognise that a disabled individual is separate from myself - as if he is a non-person. Bracherama (talk) 09:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This can be rectified if on your Talk page you create a new section and state the situation - that the account WicksHoward is Howard Wicks, and the account Bracherama is you, a personal assistant to Howard Wicks. This still means you have a COI, which should be described on your User page, but it resolves the suspicion of sockpuppetry. David notMD (talk) 10:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I will do this thank you.Bracherama (talk) 11:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I find it a sad indictment of our age that you can be considered 'notable' enough to be included in an on-line encyclopaedia if you are a vacuous minor celebrity from a reality TV show but not if you are a person who overcame one of the most adverse conditions at just sixteen which left you only able to communicate by using your eyes, but despite this you founded a charity to help others who shared your same devastating fate.Bracherama (talk) 11:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is, but you may be misunderstanding what in terms of Wikipedia procedures is meant by "notable." It doesn't mean outstanding, or important, or influential, or praiseworthy, or inspirational, or famous (or notorious) or any other quality. It only means "has been written about at significant length, by people completely independent of the subject, in at least two or three different pieces, published in recognised Reliable sources known to have rigorous editorial fact checking standards.
- Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means it only summarises material from secondary (and to a small extent primary) Reliable sources, to which all statements in the article should be cited. If those sources don't exist, there is nothing on which to base an article.
- It seems quite plausible that suitable sources about the person in question do exist, but if so you need to find them (remembering that they don't have to be online and linked, merely accessible via libraries, archives, etc., and described with the usual bibliographical details).
- We say that "anyone can edit Wikipedia." Really that means anyone may, but writing an article that meets all the required standards is hard. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.217 (talk) 13:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
From?
Quick question: in the "Category" links on a subject / BLP's page, what are the criteria for including where someone is "from"? Recently I saw a long list of places a certain BLP was from and had to read the entire article to line-up why the categories placed them there: 1. born, 2. family moved shortly after birth, 3. went to High School, 4. attended college, etc. Just how many places can someone be "from" on account they lived there for a period of time? Shouldn't it simply be: where were they born? (all encompassing) Maineartists (talk) 21:09, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Maineartists: Hey there – welcome to the Teahouse! According to WP:COPPLACE, it looks like these categories are based on "notable residence". So possibly more than just the place of birth but probably not every place a subject has ever lived. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Bsoyka Thank you for the welcome; but unless a user states: "first time here", assume they are old hat. Maineartists (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- For what it’s worth, I noticed your edit count and was just erring on the side of kindness in case you hadn’t stopped by the Teahouse yet – a lot of new users ask questions here without saying they’re new. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 23:51, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- "From" is abused in articles about towns and cities that want to claim lists of Notable People. Often, the person lived there only a short time, or lived there while young, but became notable for adult achievements. Or lived there briefly, while notable, such as professional athletes. David notMD (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Maineartists, It sounds simple but it can be complicated. For example, I was born in a different state than where I grew up, simply because the town did not have a hospital in the closest hospital was in the next state. (Interestingly, I just noticed your user name; I was not born in Maine, but that's where I spend my first 18 years, so that's where I say I am from.) S Philbrick(Talk) 22:06, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hm. Well, I guess there is no definitive answer. Which is why there are so many discrepancies found here at WP. I would agree Sphilbrick that if you spent the first 18 years of your life in one place; that should constitute a strong "from" in my estimation and not be defined by simple birthplace (which is what the infobox is for). The article in question, as David notMD referred to other articles, abused this option and ran amuck with it by "from" categorizing every location associated with the BLP. Which I find ridiculous. Maybe this discussion will spark a deeper conversation into curbing the overuse of this type of categorization for subject and BLPs. Maineartists (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Example of severe abuse of defining "from": List of people from Concord, Massachusetts David notMD (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- It surely can be complicated, but to show how silly similar issues can get, this seems appropriate. I'm not saying that any dispute about similar matters (probably more local than ethnical in this case, BLPs may have additional issues) should be ignored, but often in these cases improving the rest of the article is way more productive. I'm not notable, but officially my residence has always been more than 50 km away from the place where I was born. Personuser (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hm. Well, I guess there is no definitive answer. Which is why there are so many discrepancies found here at WP. I would agree Sphilbrick that if you spent the first 18 years of your life in one place; that should constitute a strong "from" in my estimation and not be defined by simple birthplace (which is what the infobox is for). The article in question, as David notMD referred to other articles, abused this option and ran amuck with it by "from" categorizing every location associated with the BLP. Which I find ridiculous. Maybe this discussion will spark a deeper conversation into curbing the overuse of this type of categorization for subject and BLPs. Maineartists (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I found a typo on a semi-protected page
I cannot access my now long-dormant Wikipedia account, and a new one doesn't give me access to correct this typo. If someone is interested in fixing this one, please do.
Under Genghis Khan, the first line has the word "after" as "ater".
Genghis Khan[note 4] (c. 1158 – August 18, 1227), born Temüjin,[note 1] was the founder and first Great Khan (Emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history ater his death.
Thank you! Justsaynoemorereturns (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done! In the future, you can make an edit request on the article's talk page if you don't have the ability to edit an article. (And welcome to the Teahouse!) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 21:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Is the theoretical concepts of "dignity taking" notable?
Hello! I am interested in writing articles on reparations. Recently, I found there is no Wikipedia article for "dignity taking."
This is a new theoretical concept that's recently grown in academic circles. I think since 2014. Below is just a sampling of scholarship discussing the concept.
Dignity taking (2014 seminal work, "We Want What's Ours): https://global.oup.com/academic/product/we-want-whats-ours-9780198714637?cc=us&lang=en&
Dignity taking & war on drugs (2018): https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243894
Other examples of theoretical application (2016): https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/fac_schol/937/
Do you think I can start drafting an article on this? Or is it too soon to be notable? Thanks all. Aequitas217 (talk) 00:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aequitas217: This sounds like a genuine subject. It is hard to say what is notable before writing the article, but seeing many good sources that mention the term is a good indication. For the draft, in general you do not need to ask permission to create a draft. The only times there would be an objection to a draft would be for obvious problem areas like self-promotion, attack pages, advertising, non-encyclopedic social-media style pages and so on. Someone would also likely tell you if there is a problem after you start the draft, or once you submit it to WP:AFC. Your topic sounds fine, since you are asking. So, see Draft:Dignity taking. You can also create any draft title by typing it in the search box with the draft prefix ("Draft:Something New") and then clicking the red link that comes up in the result. --- Possibly (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Aequitas217: I see now that you have already created a draft at Draft:Dignity Taking, which you started two years ago. Do you have a question related to that draft? It does look like it may need some changes to become encyclopedic, but if you press the submit button you can get some feedback on it. --- Possibly (talk) 00:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why text under Locke as italics, and so much of it without citations? A suggestion, although it would change the article from generalizations to specifics, would be to have content about how colonization and slavery are examples of dignity taking. Across North, Central and South America, Native Americans lost land and self-government. David notMD (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This is helpful, thank you! Aequitas217 (talk) 18:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Willard Erastus Christianson
I am confused what to do with Willard Erastus Christianson as the article title. A number of books call him Willard Erastus Christianson, but I can't figure out why. He was known in public records as Erastus Christiansen (no Willard, last two letters are "en") from when he was six years old (1870 census), subsequent census up to 1930 and his marriage records. To make things a little more confusing, in some of his public records he had a middle name of Julius, J, Warner, or W. Between 1875 and 1938, when he died, Newspaper records have 59 hits for Erastus Christiansen and four hits for Erastus Christianson. There are no records for "Willard Erastus Christianson" or "Willard Erastus Christiansen" in that time frame.
To those around him, he was known as Matt Warner (outlaw). I got 3,108 hits for "Mark Warner" Utah OR rustler OR outlaw from 1875 - 1938
It seems to me that the article should be moved to:
- Erastus Christiansen because that's what he went by in public records and matches up with how his surname was spelled in his lifetime.
- Matt Warner (outlaw) because that is what he is mostly commonly known as, per WP:COMMONNAME. He signed his memoir The Last of the Bandit Riders as Matt Warner.
Your input is very much appreciated. I'm a bit stuck on this - and I'll need administrator's help, I am pretty sure, to move it to the existing Matt Warner (outlaw), if that's the name that is landed on.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC) –CaroleHenson (talk) 00:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- added memoir info.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- "Matt Warner ([something distinctive])", where the distinctive something may well be "outlaw". I take your word for it that he's vastly better known as Warner. (Relevantly, our article on Henry McCarty (who sometimes used the nom de guerre William H. Bonney) is titled Billy the Kid.) If nobody disagrees (or beats me to it), I'll move the article to Matt Warner (outlaw). -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- That would be great, Hoary, thanks! I was hoping the "hits" information helped prove that he was much better known as "Warner". I actually started an article for Matt Warner (outlaw) and had no idea that his birth name was Christiansen - but I think the fact that he couldn't win an election until he used is alias, and then used "Mark Warner" as the author of his memoir helps make it clear that others thought of him as MW.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- . . . however, my example of Billy the Kid is an odd precedent at best. The article fairly consistently refers to him as "McCarty" (in itself a surprising contrast with the title), but for example: Deputy U.S. Marshal Robert Widenmann, a friend of McCarty, and a detachment of soldiers captured Sheriff Brady's jail guards, put them behind bars, and released Bonney and Brewer. / McCarty then joined the Lincoln County Regulators [...] so "McCarty" → "Bonney" → "McCarty" within two consecutive sentences. -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Okay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC) I am assuming that means - we'll wait to see what other people say.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes CaroleHenson, let's leave it for 12 hours or so; and then, if nobody either has any better idea or has beaten me to it, I'll do the move. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hoary, Sounds like a plan!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yes CaroleHenson, let's leave it for 12 hours or so; and then, if nobody either has any better idea or has beaten me to it, I'll do the move. -- Hoary (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Done. Please see Matt Warner. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Yay! Thanks so much! It looks good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
NeverEnding Story
Hello, I have another question to ask. How much did the first NeverEnding Story movie made worldwide? I've seen some sources like Box Office Mojo and IMDB say it made $20,158,808 when I recall it made that much domestically. Another reason for asking this is because on the main page for The NeverEnding Story said it made $100 million. I'm just a little confused is all. Gojilion91 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I created a section heading for this item.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- This really should be asked at the Entertainment Reference Desk There are many WP contributors who specifically frequent the desk just for these types of questions. Maineartists (talk) 02:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Gojilion91: The article should reflect what is in the sources, and the $100M figure has a citation. If that citation is not correct, or if you have suggestions for changing the article, discuss it on the article's talk page. IMDB is not a reliable source, since the content is user generated. I am not sure about Box Office Mojo. RudolfRed (talk) 02:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Isn't available ?
Isn't visual editor available in the wikipedia app? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:57, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kushal Dev Wiki: Welcome to the Teahouse! As far as I know, it isn't available in the app. (Also, please don't make duplicate sections, thanks!) Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
visual editor on wikipedia app
Is visual editor available in wikipedia app?How to access it in the app? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Delete uploaded File from Wikipedia Commons
Gentlemen, How to delete an uploaded File from Wikipedia Commons?
Valliappan Kannappan (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- As you're looking at the file in Commons (not in Wikipedia), click "Tools | Nominate for deletion", and then do as you're asked. -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Infobox for Comunidad Bet El?
Hi! I'm working on the article Comunidad Bet El, and choosing an infobox has me stumped. Strictly speaking it's about the congregation and not the synagogue building, so Infobox religious building doesn't seem right, but Infobox church is designed for Christian churches, and I don't think Infobox organization fits either. Any tips will be appreciated, or anyone is welcome to set up the infobox if they'd like! ezlevtlk
ctrbs 03:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- You're looking for a solution to a non-existent problem. Infoboxes can be helpful when they point out oft-needed information that would otherwise need time to find within lengthy articles (although all too often they prioritize easily tabulatable trivia). By contrast, Comunidad Bet El is a mere stub, so an infobox would be pointless. (Gratuitous comment: Even the monoglot reader should guess that comunidad has some relation to "community"; but "Bet El"? Related to Beth-El, perhaps?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Retirement template
Can anyone give me the link for the retirement template Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sumit banaphar: I assume you mean {{retired}}? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah,thank you Sumit banaphar (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Including Biography in Wikipedia
What is the format for submitting biography of self or any other person? Thank you Infantry28 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Infantry28. The first thing you're going to need to do is assess whether the person who want to write about is someone who is going to be considered Wikipedia notable. You can find out a little more about this here and here. This is important because it will make no difference whether you're trying to create an article about yourself or another person if you're unable to clearly establish that the subject of the article is Wikipedia notable as explained here. So, self-assess the Wikipedia notability of the person you want to write about by looking for at least two or three examples of significant coverage about them in independent and secondary reliable sources (as defined by Wikipedia). If you're able to find such coverage, try following the suggestions for creating an article given in this guide created by a Wikipedia administrator to help new editors such as yourself or come back to the Teahouse and ask some more questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Infantry28, Additionally, if your intention is to write about yourself, you probably should not. See WP:Auto. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Miklos Hornok site - Images was removed without explanation despite the photographer's written consent sent to commons-wikipedia
Please give me an explanation why the referenced photo below was removed from that site without any explanation despite of the fact that Peter Zador (the photographer) released the copyright with his written statement sent to July 26, 2019 to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org email address! (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mikl%C3%B3s_Hornok,_captain_of_Hungarian_Davis_Cup_team_and_his_No.1_player_Marton_Fucsovics_(2012).jpg I would like to reinstate the referenced photo as soon as possible because there is no reason to remove it! Mrandrew16 (talk) 08:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: similar question from November 2019.--- Possibly (talk) 08:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Mrandrew16: This needs to be resolved at commons, not here. Try asking at c:Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard on why it was deleted, or on c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard on why the image was deleted despite having been restored with what I presume is a ticket ID. Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I have asked at commons, c:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard#File:Miklós_Hornok,_captain_of_Hungarian_Davis_Cup_team_and_his_No.1_player_Marton_Fucsovics_(2012).jpg for you. An OTRS member will presumably tell you on why this was deleted (again). Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Dorian Popa
Hello, why was my page that I created, Dorian Popa, was deleted? Soby • Talk • Edits 09:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello SobySobea! If you click the redlink in your message, you'll see who deleted it and their stated reason why. In short, the article failed the Wikipedia:Notability (people) guideline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- SobySobea, BLP = WP:BLP, WP:s rather strict policy about how a bio on a living person is to be written. If you have read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and concluded "Yeah, I have those sources, no problem", then yes, you can try again, see WP:YFA for guidance. See also WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references correctly, that is essential if an article is to "stick". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Changing title of draft article
Hi, I am working on creating a wikipedia page for a school assignment, and I realised that I have made a mistake for the title of the page. How can I change the title? Can you help me please? I've read through the instructions for moving a page but I don't have that button on my site. I would like to add the year to the end of the movie title. Kiwis&apples (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Kiwis&apple - this looks a well written draft but why do you want to change the name? The year doesn't feature in the title and there is a strong preference for using the correct title for films unless there are two films sharing the same name. Velella Velella Talk 09:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Hello Kiwis&apples, and welcome to the Teahouse! You don't have the "button" yet because WP:AUTOCONFIRM, but you will in a few days. In the meantime, you may want to check "Improving your odds of a speedy review" in the the review template at Draft:When the Tenth Month Comes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Graphics Upload to Wikipedia (*.jpg)
I created a jpeg file in Excel to explain the difference between Kovats index equations. However the picture icon (I see that above my text editor right now) does not result in showing the picture in Wikipedia... I only get into trouble I dont understand... WalterSpeaksma (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, WalterSpeaksma, and welcome to the Teahouse. You have successfully uploaded File:C--Users-WSPIE-Desktop-Walter-PicKovatsDifference.jpg to Wikipedia, but have not so far added it to any articles. It has been tagged as lacking information about its origin, so you need to add that, or it will get deleted. Given that you produced it yourself, you are presumably intending to release it under a free licence, in which case it would be better for you to have uploaded it to Commons, so that it can be used in any Wikimedia project. See WP:Images. (It would also be good to rename it , to something a little less unwieldy). --ColinFine (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I want to create a page in wikipedia.
Sonamsingh143 (talk) 13:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Sonamsingh143: Hey there, welcome to the Teahouse! You can see Your first article to learn how to create an article, but I recommend you start with some simpler tasks first. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I know how to edit page and create page but i want to create new page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonamsingh143 (talk • contribs)
- Sonamsingh143 If you are asking permission, you don't need anyone's permission to create a new article(not just a page"). You should be advised that creating a new article is the absolute hardest task to perform on Wikipedia. Your edit history is very thin and I'm not certain that you actually understand what goes into creating an article. I would strongly advise you to spend time editing existing articles in areas that interest you first, to get a feel for how Wikipedia operates and what is expected of article content. This, and using the new user tutorial, will better prepare you and reduce the chances of disappointment, frustration, and hurt feelings. However, if you still wish to attempt to create an article, you may use Articles for creation. 331dot (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Looks like they have attempted an article, courtesy link for draft Draft:BKPK VIDEO. Theroadislong (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Need Personal help
how to deal with anxiety and boredom in this lockdown ? as I am feeling anxiety. Bengal Boy (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Welcome to The Teahouse, sorry to hear that you are suffering with anxiety but Wikipedia doesn't offer medical help. We can help you with editing Wikipedia though. Theroadislong (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Bengal Boy (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Teahouse is not for irl questions but just do things you like and if you can't do that do things that you haven't done before. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Untitled question by Marine-Society
I have written an article on a well known marine engineer titled "Anshuman Sen" and have cited to sources a journal and a newspaper, however it has been more than a month and it is still showing draft, could someone tell me how toget it reviewed and published in the main wiki Marine-Society (talk) 15:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marine-Society: Draft:Anshuman Sen is not currently submitted for review, however, if it were to be submitted right now, it would probbably be declined. For a living person, we have a high standard of referncing. Every statement you make about a living person MUST be accompied with an inline citation to a reliable source, because we are not interested in a rerun of the Seigenthaler incident. Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marine-Society: Welcome to the Teahouse. The number of drafts that have been submitted for review number in the thousands (standard waiting time is 4 to 5 months), and it's a backlog, not a queue, so reviewers will pick the ones that interest them the most first. Just be patient; someone will get to it soon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Per Victor Schmidt, you have not submitted it for review. If submitted as it is now, will not be accepted, as no references. What Anshuman Sen has published doe not contribute to establishing notability. What is essential is providing references to what people have written ABOUT Sen. David notMD (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Marine-Society: Welcome to the Teahouse. The number of drafts that have been submitted for review number in the thousands (standard waiting time is 4 to 5 months), and it's a backlog, not a queue, so reviewers will pick the ones that interest them the most first. Just be patient; someone will get to it soon. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
As per David's guidance, I have included an article where journalist for The News International with a monthly circulation of over 1.4 million have written about Sen, referencing his expertise on the reason for the recent grounding on the vessel "Ever Given" in the Suez Canal
- Not how references are done (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners). and anyway, that is an interview with Sen, not an article about Sen. Interviews do not support notability. David notMD (talk) 21:41, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Wrong Section
In the article - List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients: T-Z in the V section the name Edward Van Winkle is misplaced. I am not good enough with Wikitext so if someone could move it to its proper place in the W section that would be nice. Thanks in advance! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- I would suggest delete that redlink entry (and several others) per WP:LISTPEOPLE.--Shantavira|feed me 16:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I believe that in this case it would be better to keep the names in redlinks as a complete list of Medal of Honor recipients. Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- That's great! I have moved Mr Winkle.--Shantavira|feed me 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Shantavira Thanks! Gandalf the Groovy (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
new articles create
Sir How to create new articles ?? --Darveshpur (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC) Darveshpur (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- You have been given a LOT of advice, but you appear to be unable to follow it. Your draft is here Draft:Darveshpur Shikarpur Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh it requires reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Advice on creating your first article is available at Wikipedia:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- But please note, that competence is required. Theroadislong (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Advice on creating your first article is available at Wikipedia:Your first article. - David Biddulph (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Article Editor/Improve my Article
I need help improving my article in order to resubmit it for approval. Sjws96 (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- {{u|Sjws96}] Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You were given some advice in the message declining your draft. Do you have specific questions about it? 331dot (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy ping: @Sjws96: GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
HELP: Requesting assistance with Draft:KAP Hub
Greetings people at Teahouse. I'm new here and I've been eager to join the team contributing to the Wikipedia contents on the internet, unfortunately despite my strength in writing, I realized that I may not be that good in creating a Wikipedia page (seeing that my first Wikipage (Draft:KAP Hub) was declined). However, I do not want my hard work to be in vein and I really want to see it published. That said, I would appreciate if there's any means for someone to help make my contribution meet with the Wikipedia standard, so it can be published.
I look forward to a response, as I familiarize myself with the features of this application! Somtonna (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- Somtonna Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. I would first ask you if you work for or represent KAP Hub. There are certain policies you are required to comply with if that is the case, see the paid editing policy as well as conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not a place to merely tell about something; a Wikipedia article about a business must summarize what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen on their own to say about the business, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable business. The sources you have offered do not seem to meet that definition. Wikipedia is interested in what others completely unaffiliated with the subejct say about it, not in what it says about itself or merely what it does. Please see Your First Article for more information. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
why was my sandbox declined?
I provided a link so It could go under review. Artmaker12 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Artmaker12: no souces? Victor Schmidt (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
- An article, Phone fraud, exists. Perhaps you can improve that article. David notMD (talk) 21:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
County Durham (district)
Could some editors help me with linking the new article to the settlements and any other articles that use the district. I created it to help with clarifying the ceremonial and unitary authority district of County Durham (district) and County Durham. I have made a few links but would be appreciate of some more help. CheersRailwayJG (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC) RailwayJG (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Zacharias David Idris
Hi I think that the text on this page should be deleted, to leave just the redirect...can someone do it? GrahamHardy (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- I deleted all the not redirect content from the redirect page and linked to the previous revision in the talk page of the main article, in case there was some different content woth keeping. Personuser (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Asking for suggestion
I am a very newcomer and I am trying to contribute to wikipedia. How should I begin so that I can be a proffesional wikipedian in future days?Well,I lack sufficient experience to create new articles , but I want to do so late after.I require suggestions from the experienced ones. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kushal Dev Wiki, In English, "professional" implies that you would be paid to edit, which is discouraged by Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure). But if you simply want to become good at editing Wikipedia, my experience is that you should start small, and make simple, helpful edits, and learn as you go. Here is a good place to start though, if you want a little more guidance: Help:Introduction. Best of luck! — HTGS (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Restricted articles
Some articles are locked(to edit) .What type of articles are editable and which ones are not? Could you explain those criterias? Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 01:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Kushal Dev Wiki, information about protected pages (what I assume you mean by "locked") is listed at Protection policy. Pages are usually edited to protect against too much activity from bad faith editors.— HTGS (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Kushal Dev Wiki, adding onto what HTGS said, articles are protected when editors vandalize a page frequently. Articles without vandalism don't get protected. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 02:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kushal Dev Wiki to add: if a page is protected, you can always click 'View Source' at the top of the page, and click 'Submit an edit request'. There, you can type the exact text you'd add to the article and where (along with citations if you're adding new information), and someone will check it and copy it over. You can see your addition in the talk page of the article, and it'll increase your edit count as well, so you'll be on your way to edit even protected pages. Uses x (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Should I use RfC, or just ignore one dissenting opinion? (Naming conventions NZ)
Hi all,
I recently made a small, though not inconsequential, change (here) to Naming Conventions (New Zealand), believing it was appropriate and essentially what most editors had been acting on already (a senior wikiproject editor had already commented supporting the idea behind the change). Another editor reverted my change, so I raised a discussion on the talk page. After discussion, it seems that the only person opposed to the change is still this same editor. This editor and I have discussed extensively, and I find their arguments nonsensical and against better Wikipedia principles and guidelines.
(Essentially this editor opposes a preference for common names, but makes arguments that don't seem to support this preference. Eg, paraphrasing: "we shouldn't prefer common names because guidelines say we don't always have to use common names," and "official names aren't much less concise in some cases," and "sometimes there isn't much written about the topic, so a common name is hard to establish". My impression is that it all boils down to a preference for official names.)
So my question is, at this point, should I assume that consensus (only four to one; though editors who have elsewhere commented on similar discussions have been extensively notified) has found my edit preferable, and reinstate it… OR should I raise an RfC to get outside opinions? I do believe outside wisdom would follow my own thoughts on the matter, but I also don't know whether I need to bother; community discussion has only been pushed back by this one editor, so I feel that usually (eg, on typical article talk page discussions) we could just proceed. I'm not in any real rush, but it has been some time, and I'd like to move the issue on. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
So my question is, at this point, should I assume that consensus (only four to one; though editors who have elsewhere commented on similar discussions have been extensively notified) has found my edit preferable, and reinstate it… OR should I raise an RfC to get outside opinions? I do believe outside wisdom would follow my own thoughts on the matter, but I also don't know whether I need to bother; community discussion has only been pushed back by this one editor, so I feel that usually (eg, on typical article talk page discussions) we could just proceed. I'm not in any real rush, but it has been some time, and I'd like to move the issue on. — HTGS (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- HTGS I'm not familiar with New Zealand topics, but from experience in Mandarin Chinese romanizations, naming conventions tend to be messy. While you're certainly free to be bold, in possibly contentious cases like this, it is often better to have an established consensus before making the change. I didn't read the talk page discussion because its quite long and complicated, but a formal RfC, closed by an uninvolved editor, could be a good move to clearly define what consensus is. It would also be a chance to get opinions from even more editors on the matter. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 05:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
The articles available in different languages are translated by a translator or a wikipedian ?
Nepali wikipedia lacks so many topics.I want to create articles in Nepali by translating those one in english so that it may be easier for the Nepali users.I require suggestions and helps. Kushal Dev Wiki (talk) 02:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kushal Dev Wiki: Follow the guidance at WP:TRANSLATEUS. You should also check the guidelines at the Nepali Wikipedia, since each langauge Wikipedia has its own rules for what is an acceptable article. RudolfRed (talk) 02:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Anyone is welcome to edit Wikipedia, and in any language. If you speak Nepali, you are free to write articles on the Nepali Wikipedia, just as you are on the English Wikipedia. You can write them from scratch, translate them from other languages (including English), or use the sources available on the corresponding English language page. Here is a brief guide for translating from English: Wikipedia:Translate us. — HTGS (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Signature text white
Hello I was wondering why I can't make my signature text white, I put color=white in the relevant span? Thanks for your help --{{u|ALMATY}}✉ 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Almaty: Wikipedia:Signature_tutorial#Getting_colourful... gives an example of white text on a blue background. I think it needs to be "color:white" not "color=white".Maybe give that a try? RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- RudolfRed giving advices on white text seems kind of funny/inspirational, but probably shouldn't be overthinked about (I am sorry and apologize for this comment). Personuser (talk) 04:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Almaty: RudolfRed is correct if you're using the HTML
span
element. If you want something a little easier, there's {{white}} that you can use. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Getting the patrol right
Hello, I'm Shabib20, or you can call me Shabib. Recently I saw that I have the option to patrol edits in the Bengali Wikipedia. But I'm not getting it here. So its a question to you, "How do I get an option to patrol edits ?" Shabib (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Shabib20: Different language Wikipedias operate independently from each other. That means that whatever happens in the Bengali Wikipedia does not concern the English Wikipedia, and any user permissions you get there do not carry over here. I think the English Wikipedia counterpart to "patrol edits" is the pending changes reviewer right. ◢ Ganbaruby! (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Not receiving update about pending article
Hi Wikipedia Family, my first article is currently pending review. However, I do not receive any update about my article yet. I just want to know is there anything else I missed in my article?
Thanks, Lorheng (talk) 05:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Courtesy link: Draft:Chip Mong. "This may take 5 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 5,118 pending submissions waiting for review.". Thank you. ─ The Aafī (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Lorheng, your draft Draft:Chip Mong won't be reviewed until you submit it for review. (And as TheAafi says, you may have to wait for months after that.) ¶ On your user page, you write I work for Chip Mong Group, a Cambodian conglomerate company. I will declare the COI right on the article that I involve. You have to do that on the draft. (You haven't done so yet.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
- Also, did the company really authorize releasing the logo under CC-BY-SA? RudolfRed (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Help on article about Rivancindela Hudsoni
Hello! I am a university student and am new to editing. I'm working on an article on the beetle Rivancindela Hudsoni, would someone be able to read it over and give me some constructive advice? Anastasia.sck (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Old-accessdate
Hello, anybody hanging around being able to explain the old-accessdate? RedWolf did not come back on that and I am in the honest opinion the originale date of access to the site should be kept. Thank you for your time. URL access date The full date when the original URL was accessed; do not wikilink Lotje (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)