Open main menu
Archive 1000 Archive 1002 Archive 1003 Archive 1004 Archive 1005 Archive 1006 Archive 1010

Publishing An Article. My Article is In Sandbox

My article is in Sandbox. Do I need to complete other action. I'm unable to pull it up in the search box. Is in an active/live content document or do I need to complete another step in the content publication process? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pflovett (talkcontribs) 04:23, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Pflovett. Techinically what you've created is an userspace draft, not an article. The "Publish changes" button can be a bit confusing in that it really means to "Save changes" (in fact that's its previous name); so, when you hit it you're basically just saving all of the changes you made in that particular editing session to the page's history. Userspace drafts or regular drafts are not automatically "published" per se; they need to be manually WP:MOVED move to the article mainspace before they are truly considered articles.
After looking at User:Pflovett/sandbox, I would not suggest trying to MOVE your work to the article namespace just yet because it's not nearly ready to be added as an article. It looks like you might've made an OK start, but none of the content is supported by any citations to reliable sources and the Wikipedia notability of the subject is not clear. So, if you MOVE your work to the mainspace as it is, it's almost certainly going to end up tagged/nominated for deletion (perhaps even quite quickly).
You might want to read Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything to gain some insight as to what types of subject are typically considered to be sutiable for a Wikipedia article about them. Then, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people), Help:Your first article, Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (particularly WP:NOTMEMORIAL), and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends since those pages also contain information you might find helpful. You might also want to take the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure since you can learn about Wikipedia editing while actually editing. If do all those things, you have more specific questions, feel free to come back to the Teahouse and ask them. Good luck to you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Language link issue

When I go to Simon I (High Priest) and look at the bottom left, there is a Hebrew link to the page for שמעון השני (which is incorrect). When I click "Edit links", however, the Hebrew link that appears is to a different page (the correct page) שמעון הראשון. Why the inconsistency, and how can we make it link to the correct page? Ar2332 (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ar2332. I can see and even recreate the problem your describing but can't read Hebrew; so, this is just a guess. It seems like it might be a WP:WIKIDATA problem. You might want to try asking at WP:VPT since that's generally a good place for asking technical questions like this. he:שמעון הראשון and he:שמעון השני are different articles, but maybe there's something about their respective Wikidata that's causing the software to treat them as same one. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Answered at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Language link issue. PrimeHunter (talk) 08:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Editing my company Wikipedia Page

Hi Folks,

Quick question - I have a few edits I want to suggest for a company I work in but of course I don't want to break any Wikipedia rules. I was thinking of suggesting my edits here at the Teahouse along with their citations - is this a good practice? If not, can you please link me to a page where I can suggest such edits? This will be my first time editing/suggesting edits.

Thank you to everyone in advance for reading and replying to my question. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SManiar (talkcontribs) 12:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

SManiar Greetings. You could Wikipedia:Edit requests at the article talk page and provide the sources accordingly.Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~).. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
And I think "a company I work for" is fairly vague. God help us if every person who has ever been employed by a place like China Mobile Communications (currently employing 460,000), or McDonald's or Wal-Mart (fewer current employees but high turnover rates); never be able to edit their articles? But, yes, as previously mentioned, use the article talk page to make a request. Quakewoody (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Restricting edits to an article

I am curious about under what circumstances an article can be, or will be, restricted to open editing? I understand that if there is vandalism, or an editing war on a page, the page might be restricted temporarily, but what if the subject of a bio of a living person wants his/her page closed to edits? Is that ever done? Thanks for your time and consideration. (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, welcome to the Teahouse. No, that cannot be done. The only times when pages are protected are when there is persistent vandalism, edit warring or lots of unsourced content is added repetitively. I think there is a couple more reasons but these are the most common. Protection is never precautionary nor can it be requested from the subject of the article. I hope that helps, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Just to clarify: protection can be requested by the article subject, but they would need a valid reason (most likely persistent vandalism). Cordless Larry (talk) 08:00, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Willbb234 is right. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. Indeed, if the subject of an article requests protection without what that policy page describes as a valid reason, it is likely to arouse suspicion. Maproom (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, since you said "living person wants his page" - you should read up on the Conflict of Interest guidelines. Person X can't edit Person X's article. I can't even correct my dead gf's birth name. However, I do have some sympathy for a living person that has an article. Not because they have a page (you seek "fame", you give up certain amounts of privacy), but because some of the stuff that is written can become a bit tabloid-ish. "Recentism" can be a problem. I have seen major movie stars of the 50s-70s with 10 line written about them. While today's people on the "D-list" have these big huge articles with so much trivial detail - and that is simply because of the way we require sourcing. The modern internet media puts out enough press, everyone can be famous for 15 minutes. Whereas the olden stars, well, it cost money to print magazines, they are limited in the amount of pages they can print which limits the amount of people and topics they can cover. Quakewoody (talk) 07:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
And its then far worse trying to find equivelent sourcing on people of merit (and especially women) who lived and worked a hundred years ago or more. Sadly, its far easier to trace sources about today's cultural non-entities that meet our notability guidelines than it is to find it for those historic characters who actually helped shape today's societies around the world. But that's the choice Wikipedians have made. Only we can change that. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
But this particular place/topic is not where to do it. Quakewoody (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

How to ...?

... licence newly uploaded files — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwakebe1 (talkcontribs) 13:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mwakebe1 and welcome to the Teahouse. You can't freely license an image if the copyright belongs to someone else. The safest advice is to upload photographs that you took yourself, then, as copyright holder, you can release the image under a free licence. See WP:Uploading images for general guidance. Dbfirs 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Can a "how to pronounce" audio clip be added to a page or pages?

Good Morning Teahouse - (first timer here) I'm curious if an audio snip with the correct pronunciation of the search topic could be added to a page or pages? If that detail is already part of a page(s) I guess I've overlooked it. The impetus for my (first ever) note to the Teahouse was prompted by a revision to a page I follow. I enjoy getting an email notification whenever a page has been revised. I always try to revisit the page, not necessarily to see the change but because at some point in the past I found the subject of interest and bookmarked it. More time than not the edit is to a page that I'd long forgotten about, and upon seeing and reading the page I'm almost transported to the time and mindset that originally prompted the search on Wikipedia. I love Wikipedia and have been a small supporter/$$contributor for many years. (I even have the stickers and a gray hoodie from the wiki-store LOL)

So back to my question about embedding a pronunciation snippet into a page, is it possible or is it already on pages and I'm just overlooking it? The page that brought me here this morning is the one. The Wikipedia page Triskelion has been changed on 26 August 2019 by anonymous user, see for the current revision.

I see the phonetic information on each page, but I think (at least for me) that I'd benefit from hearing it pronounced. Soooo, to hear the work "Triskelion" spoken I searched and listened to it here. (sorry for the long link)

I think upon hearing it I can more confidently use it in conversation and of course, that applies to all the subjects I have bookmarked or saved in my Wikimedia account.

Based on the Teahouse bio it looks like this is a supportive place and part of the goal is to answer page questions, entertain suggestions and help encourage new page editors, thus my rambling note this morning... ;-)

Thank You James Ashley user name Oneluckydog1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneluckydog1 (talkcontribs) 12:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Oneluckydog1, good morning! If you go to WP:AUDIO and through a couple of sections, you might get all the information you are looking for. My personal answer is this:
I have seen Wikipedia pages which have pronunciation files. As you say, it's quite helpful in cases of complex/interesting/foreign/technical words. The only barrier I can imagine is copyrights. If we have pronunciation files that are of good quality and legally allowed to use, I think we usually do. Fortunately, anyone can record such audio files and upload to Commons. More info on that is also on the page I linked previously. Cheers! Usedtobecool   13:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Depending upon the word there are some fairly major barriers to determining what the "correct" pronunciation is. Consider the case of "lieutenant", is it "lef-TEN-ənt" or "loo-TEN-ənt"? Do you pronounce "brass" to rhyme with "ass" or with "arse"? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
True. But it's hardly a unique problem. We have the same problem with trasliterations, phonetics, and even variations of names and spellings of names. Guess the community processes take over. Usedtobecool   15:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiktionary often has audio pronunciations, but not often enough, and not for triskelion. We need more volunteers with resources for recording pronunciations. Dbfirs 15:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
An example of what you're looking for is at Audi. If there are variations of pronunciation, there is nothing against having them both in the article. For example, the infobox of Aluminium has UK and US pronunciation sound files.--Gronk Oz (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Trying to upload photos, please assist

Hi, I'm trying to insert photos into a draft Wiki page I've already submitted about my late father, Sherwood Ross. When I try to upload the photos, I get a message saying that they can't be published because of questions about licensing. The two photos I tried to upload have been in my family's possession for more than 50 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kross305 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kross305: Welcome to Wikipedia. We prefer you don't post the same question in multiple places. Please see the responses at the help desk (WP:HD) RudolfRed (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Less a question and more of a suggestion

I don't really know if there is a specific place to put suggestions regarding the Wikipedia UI, so I'll just stick it here for now. I would like to suggest that an option to filter out edits by username be added to the UI of the Recent Changes page. I want this because it would make patrolling the RC page easier if I could filter out edits by, say, the MediaWiki message bot. The existing option to remove edits made by bots and only show human edits doesn't seem to work, as it seems not all bots are categorized as such by the RC UI. If there is a better spot to place this, please tell me. Jeb3Talk at me here 17:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Jebcubed You can set the filters in the Recent Changes page to exclude edits by bots. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Jebcubed I just went to [[1]] and the default setting shows no bot edits, at least that I can see. There may be some that are missed, but perhaps it's better to contact the operators of those exception bots and alert them? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I want to bring some articles over from English Wikipedia to Urdu Wikipedia by translating them

But I'm having hard time fighting out the large amount of formatting code used in different cases. Any idea how to get comfortable with these ? Also I see that many articles at Urdu Wikipedia appear to be marked as either stub or disputed. However, their counterparts at English Wikipedia are almost complete. So can I edit those and bring them up to par with their English counterparts? Alifarhadd (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Alifarhadd Thanks for trying to help Wikipedia. You can make any edits you want as long as the translation is correct. Here's the help info for the English Wiki - not sure where you'd go if you want the info in Urdu. Help:Wikitext TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@Alifarhadd: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for wanting to make it better. To get familiar with Wikipedia formatting and editing, check out the WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. This should help you become more comfortable with editing. Then, check out Wikipedia:Translate_us for guidance on translating into other languages. RudolfRed (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

edited PH name template

Hello! Can I ask you about the newly edited version of Philippine name template. I really edit the template by replacing the words "Matronymic"/"Patronymic" intead of "middle name" pr "surname" to make it more shorter and more interesting as well. RenRen070193 (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@RenRen070193: I'm not sure what you're asking, and I'd like to help, but can't find the template you are referring to. Can you provide its name inside code to prevent it from functioning, like this?? <nowiki>{{template}}</nowiki> TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@RenRen070193: Your edit to {{Philippine name}} was reverted by another editor. Please discuss on the template's talk page to get consensus for the change. RudolfRed (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


How do you add the History bar and Personal Life bar? I'm not completely finished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.p1 official1 (talkcontribs) 19:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@A.p1 official1: Here's the link to the draft in question for other editors' convenience: User:A.p1 official1 I recommend you read WP:YOURFIRSTARTICLE before proceeding any further. Your draft will not be approved without sources that show notability, and linking to a Soundcloud page is not nearly enough. To get more familiar with Wikipedia formatting and editing, check out the WP:TUTORIAL and the interactive learning game at WP:ADVENTURE. This should help you become more comfortable with editing. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:17, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @A.p1 official1:Unfortunately, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is not to write your autobiography - have you been talked about in many news articles? It may be better to work on establishing fame first - you don't need a Wikipedia article to be famous. Besides, the thing is that you seem to be writing about yourself - if you write your own article, you will have a conflict of interest (that just means you might find it hard to stay encyclopedic, and write neutrally), and we'll have to stick a bright orange tag on top telling everyone that you wrote it. That doesn't look super great. Best of luck in your career! -A lainsane (Channel 2) 20:19, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Jenn Colella's Page

The link on Jenn Colella's page for her personal website is incorrect. The link takes you to a list of options related to broadway shows, but once you clink on one of those, you then get a link to porn sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello IP editor. I removed that invalid website link. If there is a valid website, please let me know and I will add it back. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Confirming requirements for an uploaded image

Hello. I just uploaded an image (File:Stephen_Gogolev_SP_ISU_2019_World_Junior_Figure_Skating_Championships.jpeg) and I wanted to be sure I've done what's required of me in uploading this image. I previously sent an email to the photographer who gave his approval to share photos from his site, but I am not sure if a screenshot of that email is required and if I need to upload that screenshot somewhere. Or what more I need to do for the description of this file. I would just like to be sure the image doesn't get deleted. Thank you. Flyingspacecat (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flyingspacecat: See Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries The photographer will have to send the approval email. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Welcome to the Teahouse, Flyingspacecat. This image is not acceptable at present and must be removed. Only the photographer can release this image under an acceptable Creative Commons license, and the photographer must provide that certification in acceptable legal language to the WMF. An email sent to you is not adequate. The easiest way is for the photographer to upload the image to Wikimedia Commons himself, with the proper licensing. It can be done by email but this is slower and more complex. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I will get in touch with the photographer to attempt to initiate the process. I am not sure how to delete the image myself so I will await its deletion.Flyingspacecat (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Page Declined Due to Unreliable Source

I recently had a post declined for a unreliable references. I would love to get some further guidance on what sources I would require to get my post about Plevo posted on Wikipedia. Please see below the post?

‘’Plevo’’' is an American travel and lifestyle brand that develops and produces technology world class travel products.[1][2] Led by founder, Federico Pelatti in Buenos Aires. The brand launched an smart luggage line, The Plevo Series One, on the crowdfunding websites, Kickstarter and Indiegogo in 2018. The campaign raised $403,762 USD in contributions after 45 days.[3][4] Since its foundation in 2018, Plevo has raised $1.4 million USD in financing.[5]


— Preceding unsigned comment added by TomMackay11 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

TomMackay11, I can't comment on the Financial Times source because it's paywalled, but looking at the other sources:
  • The indiegogo and kickstarter pages are directly affiliated with the subject and thus not independent coverage.
  • Crunchbase (RSP entry) is an unreliable source which has been deprecated
Additionally, the paragraph of text that you have written here is blatantly promotional. Wikipedia should never describe something as "world class travel products" in its own voice. signed, Rosguill talk 17:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
TomMackay11 - You will need at least 8-10 sources of media coverage, including at least two in-depth profiles to demonstrate that the company is notable enough for an article here. I did a quick search and can't find other sources that are not advertisements or the company's own press releases. See WP:RS for proper sourcing guidelines. Since the product just launched, it seems that trying to get an article is premature. See WP:TOOSOON. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello, TomMackay11, and welcome to the Teahouse. One thing that may help is to realise that Wikipedia has almost no interest in anything that the subject of an article (or associates of that subject) says about themselves, whether in their own publications or websites, or in interviews or press releases. It is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about it, in reliable sources. I realise that your question is primarily about what is a reliable source, but the other replies you have had suggest to me that part of the issue is the independence of the sources. (I haven't looked at any of your sources myself) --ColinFine (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)



I just created a draft but I don't know how to submit for review. Thanks, Nadine Dewi (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nadine Dewi. I've added a template to the draft. You can submit for review by clicking on the blue "Submit your draft for review!" button. The review process can sometimes take a bit of time since there are lots of drafts submitted and only so many reviewers; so, be a little patient. You can continue to work on improving the draft while you're waiting. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Marchjuly, Appreciate your Support and your prompt reply. Nadine Dewi (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

how do I write my name on Wikipedia

how do I write my name on Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph ogera (talkcontribs) 00:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joseph ogera. I'm not sure what you mean by "write my name on Wikipedia".
Do you want to know how to add your signature to the Wikipedia posts you make? If that's the cse, please take a look at Wikipedia:Signatures.
Do you want to know how to add an article written about you to Wikipedia? If that's the case, please take a look at Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Writing about yourself, family, friends, Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site. I realize that's a lot of stuff to look at, but those pages contain information that you will most likely find helpful; so, read through them and then feel free to come back to the Teahouse if you've got any further questions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Brazil-France insults

Hi!, Brazilian President name-called French President "idiot", "stupid" and mocked his wife, while Macron responded that he "hopes a change of President in Brazil soon". Can I add that to Brazil-France relations? Thank you! --CoryGlee (talk) 00:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

CoryGlee, this is a discussion to have on the talk page for the article, in this case Talk:Brazil–France relations. If you have reliable sources to back up these claims, you can add them. However, bear in mind that Wikipedia is not news; think about whether the namecalling between Bolsonaro and Macron is likely to be relevant to diplomacy between France and Brazil a year, two years, five years from now. If the answer to that question is no, then this content probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about bilateral relations between France and Brazil. signed, Rosguill talk 01:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi CoryGlee. In general, Wikipedia wants us to be WP:BOLD and try to improve articles; so, if you believe you can improve an article, then go ahead a do so. Sometimes, however, another editor may disagree with the changes you make and WP:REVERTs them; when that happens, please follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and try and establish a consensus for your changes on the article's talk page. It is through discussion that disagreements among editors over article content are expected to be sorted out.
Now, in this particular case, I would suggest that it might be better to be WP:CAUTIOUS than BOLD because what you're describing sounds like something which almost certain is true and even possibly verifiable, but which might not really be worth something mentioning in the article unless it has a lasting impact on the relationship between the two countries. Policticians often say things that makes the news and stirs up a bit of controversy in the short-term, but is really not of any lasting importance (at least encyclopedic importance). So, it might be a good idea to discuss this on the article's talk page first and see what others think. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rosguill:, @Marchjuly:, perfect friends! understood! thanks for your quick help! :) :heart: --CoryGlee (talk) 01:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Infobox Size

I stumbled across the article Kamla Persad-Bissessar which has a very long infobox, longer than the article text actually. A general question on that: Are infoboxes meant to be used to that extent, or should they be kept short to provide a first overview? And should infoboxes contain citations or should citations be placed in the appropriate part of the article text? Thanks and kind regards, Grueslayer 08:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Grueslayer, WP:INFOBOX has something to say about some things you want to know. For example, citation should be minimal. Not necessary if the information is well cited in the article. Infoboxes are meant to be a summary overview of the subject, so it mostly repeats info already in the article in which case citation is not needed. A few citations are acceptable for highly controversial claims, for example in a biography of living person,or if the information is added to the infobox but isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. I don't think there's any rules against long infoboxes. But if there is enough info to have such a long infobox, same info can be used to expand the prose as well. And if the info isn't in the prose because there are no good sources to cite, it would be wrong to include such info in the infobox, wouldn't it? Hope this helps! I'm sure others will add more. Usedtobecool   13:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Usedtobecool, that helped! Kind regards, Grueslayer 05:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft Article

Hi everyone,

I trust you are well.

How do I know that my Draft Article has been approved to the main space of Wikipedia?

Do I randomly check at intervals or I shoumd get some sort of notification from Wikipedia?

Kindly Advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. You won't get a notification, you will need to check periodically. Drafts are not reviewed in any particular order, so it may take some time as there are thousands of drafts waiting. The edit history of your IP does not indicate edits to a draft, so I cannot give you more advice than that unless you want to link to the draft. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
A registered user can set email notifications enabled for talk page messages as well as review of pages created by self, two of the things that should invariably happen when a draft is approved and published. Talk page message is customary also in case the draft is rejected. Usedtobecool   06:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How to create Wikipedia

How to create page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheera raj illalai (talkcontribs) 05:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Atheera raj illalai. Your question is pretty vague, so I will tell you that an acceptable Wikipedia article summarizes what independent, reliable, published sources say about the topic. Please spend some time reading and studying Your first article, and then feel free to return to the Teahouse to ask more specific questions. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Atheera raj illalai: In addition to the good advice given above, you might then like to visit the Articles for Creation page. There you can start work on a draft of a new page and then submit it for review when its ready. As creating a new article is the single most difficult task here, it is far, far better that new editors first learn the basics by making smaller improvements to existing pages. Do have a go at The Wikipedia Adventure, too. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 07:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

About Promotional Articles

I wont understand what kind of articles called promotional articals? Please explain me with examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osama ohm (talkcontribs) 08:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Osama ohm: - Welcome to Wikipedia and to the Teahouse. It's hard to provide examples because promotional articles tend to be either deleted or edited to remove the promotional content. There are a lot of factors which would make me view an article as promotional - these would include:
  • Being written in a style that sounds like advertising, and not objective and balanced.
  • Including too much information about a company's products and services, especially combined with the point above.
  • Containing unnecessary external links to commercial websites.
However the biggest factor is simply an article that is not sufficiently notable to appear on Wikipedia at all. An article should generally only be included here if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. If that is the case, then any issues of being 'too promotional' can generally be dealt with by editing. If it is not the case, then the article being 'promotional' doesn't really matter, because it will probably be deleted regardless. I would suggest reading WP:PROMO, WP:NPOV and WP:COI for more information.
Finally, can I ask why you are interested in this topic? Have you previously tried to create an article here and had it rejected for being promotional? Hugsyrup 08:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Osama ohm: - I noticed after writing this, that your userpage was deleted for being promotional. As I'm not an admin, I can't see what content was there so I don't know why that was, but usually for a user page to be deleted as promotional, it must have included content that sounded like an advert for a company or individual, and/or inappropriate external links. One of the admins who answers questions here can probably take a look at the page history and tell you exactly what the problem was. Hugsyrup 11:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The Right time to publish

Good Day

Lo From South Africa here, I have been Editing my personal page here for the past 8 weeks or so and I feel like I have gotten very far and I think I'm ready to submit it for review. My Question here, is there a certain criteria list that I could look at just to check if my page is on the right path. and What happens when your drafts are not considered ??

Lo Squared (talk) 13:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello Lo Squared, and welcome to the Teahouse. I saw your personal page, and it shows that you made a draft about yourself, which is not an accepted practice here because it is seen as conflict of interest editing. See WP:Autobiography for more information. You also haven’t provided any reliable sources in your draft. LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Lo Squared:. I assume we are talking about User:Lo_Squared/sandbox? Just to clarify, WP:COI editing isn't banned, although it is frowned upon and should be declared. However the problem that you are likely to have is that you are probably not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and, if you are, your current draft does not establish this because your only sources are Soundcloud, Facebook and a hospital website that seems to have nothing to do with you. The lack of sources is the biggest problem, although there are other issues with the promotional tone and far too many external links. There is not exactly a checklist for whether your article is ready, but the closest thing is to see if you think it meets the general notability guidelines. Namely: has the subject of the article received 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'? There is a lot more information available about how to define each of the terms in that criteria, but that line is at the heart of what makes an article acceptable. If you can find significant coverage of yourself in independent, reliable sources, then your article will almost certainly be accepted. If you can't, then it almost certainly won't. Hugsyrup 13:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

edit or add to HOODOO .. don't know now ..

just visited Drumheller in the Badlands, Alberta in July 2019, and took pictures and it read clearly the description of it .. The word Hoodo originates from the Housa language of West Africa, meaning "to arouse resentment, produce retribution". Hoodoo was a distinct magic practice introduced to North America in the 18th century, although different in nature than the more familiar voodoo. Aboriginal people used "hoodoo" to refer to evil, supernatural forces. Some believed hoodoos were giants turned to stone by the Great Spirit due to their evil deeds. Royal Tyrell Museum, Alberta

will be glad to provide pictures if you need it ... also have it in French, which is my maternal tongue and more easy for me; just tought I would bring this up so someone could add this

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Capri128 (talkcontribs) 13:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Capri128: The best place to raise this would be at the talk page of the article Hoodoo (folk magic). However, if your source is a picture you have taken yourself then it is unlikely to be accepted - you would need a reliable source such as a published book, journal or news article. Hugsyrup 14:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Feedback required on the content

I have prepared the content for the Financial Technologies Group page. Since the page has been subject to repeated edits, I want someone to review it before I post it. Please let me know what you think about the content: Titan356 (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It reads like an official website, which is probably where it should go, rather than here. GMGtalk 14:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting my edits

Good day to all Wikipedia editors, I came to ask a question. Why are you deleting my edits on 2019 Pacific typhoon season? Is it because its too long? I havent introduced wrong information, unlike my previous edits. Why are you removing my edits even though the information is right and with links? I had this issue for a long time now and came to complain. If my edits are not accepted for not a valid reason, I would leave Wikipedia. I like being here, but the service is not that good. Please answer this question accordingly.

Thank you. Duckno. Quack!

Duckno (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)DucknoDuckno (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Duckno: - Welcome to the Teahouse. This is a venue to ask general questions about how to use Wikipedia, it's not really somewhere you can address "all Wikipedia editors" (in fact, there is no such place). It looks to me as if your edits were undone by A1Cafel primarily, so your best bet is to post a message on their talk page to ask for clarification. If they don't answer, or that doesn't help, you should discuss your edits on the article talk page to get consensus for whatever changes you wish to make. Hugsyrup 13:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thank you. I will ask on the help page. Thanks again for including me in the Cafe. Duckno (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)DucknoDuckno (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckno (talkcontribs) 13:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Duckno: I have looked at your most recent edit to 2019 Pacific typhoon season. I see that it removed a referenced sentence, along with its reference; and added several unreferenced statements. References play a very important part in Wikipedia, in providing evidence that the information presented here is correct. I am not surprised that another editor reverted that particular edit. Maproom (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I looked at many of your edits to that article and for none did I see that you added a citation. Wikilinks are not citations. The content you added may be true, but without citations it will be deleted. David notMD (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Writing an article

Please,How can you write your own articles and attach images — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quophiasare (talkcontribs) 16:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Quophiasare. You might want to start by reviewing our tutorial on writing your first article, or consider taking our interactive tutorial at The Wikipedia Adventure. There can be a big learning curve when you are brand new to Wikipedia, and these can help catch you up on how a lot of different things work. GMGtalk 16:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Including important elements in articles

How do I include all the important elements into an entry, such as:

Born Residence Nationality Education Occupation Current group Former groups

  1 Early life and education
  2 Career
  3 Awards
  4 References
  5 External links

Early life and education


External links

Is there a template that I can insert into my Sandbox, using the Visual editor?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipszp (talkcontribs) 16:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Philipszp: I took the liberty of editing your question. When I do a new article, I find one that is most like the one I'm going to create and cut and paste the code into the draft space. I then edit, adding and removing items as necessary. The first set of info you are asking about usually goes in the infobox. There may be a more elegant solution that I'm not aware of, but not every article has the same elements. (Please sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes like this: ~~~~.) TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Need help with adding additional content to an existing article page with little conversation in the "talk" section of the page

Hi everyone, I'm new to Wikipedia and I understand the process of going in and actually editing an article/page but I need help with doing this the correct way. The article/page I want to edit and add additional information to is Bug-A-Salt. I have a ton of additional information and sections, with references to external news sources and articles, that I'd like to add, but there doesn't seem to be much conversation going on in the "talk" page. How do I go about getting this information added and ensuring the information is within the guidelines. I'm pretty certain I've followed the guidelines and the information isn't biased or opinionated, and it's very factual. What's my next step from here?

Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks everyone! Tayloreyelash (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi there Tayloreyelash, welcome to Wikipedia. First, have a glance over Help:Editing - see the 'Major edits' and 'Adding references' sections. I would also advise reading Help:Citing for help on adding references. I would be bold and add the information once you are ready, then, you can ping either myself or another host and they can take a look at your edits to see if they are all fine. If you feel like you can't do this and you're completely confused, take the Tutorial and gain some more experiences with smaller edits before taking this on. Talk pages are usually inactive for less significant articles, so its probably best to leave it alone. You also need to make sure the sources you have are reliable, if you are unsure, please ping me and direct me to the references you have so that I can take a look at them. I hope that helps, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tayloreyelash: (ec) Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. The nature of your question suggests to me that you have a conflict of interest.(click the link to review) If you do, it is a good idea for you to declare it. If you have a paid relationship with this product or its manufacturer, Wikipedia's Terms of Use require you to declare the paid relationship. How to add (or even if you should) the information depends on this. 331dot (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234: thanks for your response! So, you're saying that I should submit my draft of edits to the "talk" page and just edit the main page? Is there any way I can submit my draft of what I want to submit to a host before hand? @331dot: I do have a COI but when I wrote this information I blatantly followed the format of the Nerf and Nerf Blaster pages to ensure my information was purely factual. The information I want to include is what the device does, how it works, the history of how the inventor launched the product through Indiegogo, a list of the products that the brand offers, and also details about the company including sales and revenue. The numbers are all "hisotrical" and the sources cited come from Daily Mail, CNBC, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and I wrote everything that I want to include based on the information found in the articles. The only information that didn't come from external articles is information of the types of products. This information details when the product launched, what type of bugs recommended to kill, and updated features. Let me know your thoughts @Willbb234: and @331dot:. I appreciate all your help! Tayloreyelash (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tayloreyelash: I will respond on your talk page. Willbb234Talk (please {{

ping}} me in replies) 21:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

What is nature of your COI? David notMD (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Association of Accredited Naturopathic Medical Colleges

Excuse me, but is there a Naturopathic Medical Doctor in the house? 4Cancer (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@4Cancer: What are you asking? We cannot offer medical advice. RudolfRed (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
@4Cancer: No, without sufficient sourcing, but you can read about Bastyr University. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 20:25, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

So, there are no editors on Wikipedia that are Naturopathic Medical Doctors?

Well, that explains what is happening to all the herbal remedy/traditional medicine sections of various nutritional supplement pages.

Absolutely no one at all? I would think that the Naturopathic Medical Doctors (as a whole) would at least dispute the neutrality of these pages after what has been going on...they represent a significant minority and therefore their voices should be heard as well as the voices of regular medical professionals...there is a serious imbalance in content that I find shocking for Wikipedia. At least, what I remember Wikipedia being. Just because a group of medical professionals has created a sub group of editors with their own set of rules, above and beyond Wikipedia rules...and then started mucking about with all pages with herbal remedies on them saying that there is no clinical evidence and no other sources that support the Naturopaths position...

I think this is appalling. GNC, Natural Grocers, etc wouldn't exist if there wasn't a clear margin beyond placebo effect of happy customers.

4Cancer (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Cancer (talkcontribs) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@4Cancer: You can add anything you want, as long as you include reliable sources. See WP:RS for more info. Your concerns and newness come across as WP:SOAP, and in your short time here, it suggests WP:NOTHERE. It's not too late for you though. Since the Teahouse is a general forum for editing advice, you're better off discussing your concerns on Talk:Alternative medicine or a related page, where others with similar interests congregate. Good luck. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE - If you had used that I don't think I could have argued. 4Cancer (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest, more specifically, WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Also, from my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "Naturopathic Medical Doctor", NDs are not MDs: one is either a Naturopath or a Medical Doctor. BTW, they have tried to dispute the neutrality, and they lost. The simple fact is this: the evidence doesn't support the Naturopaths' positions, in general, and Wikipedia must reflect that. The accusation of imbalance seems to come from the false premise that to be "balanced" we should give equal weight to the claims and beliefs of everyone. Also see WP:UNDUE.VdSV9 21:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that they lost. The Alternative Medicine Talk page was quite informative on just how much they lost.

You can't argue with regulation though.

The fact is, these nutritional supplements are sold, in real brick and mortar stores and online. And they are regulated and allowed to do so by DSHEA. So, I guess that adding "Sold and regulated by" sections to each herbal remedy that is used is now my mission in life.

4Cancer (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, 4Cancer. Your mission here on Wikipedia must be to edit neutrally in full compliance with the relevant policies and guidelines. Any edits to medical content must be based on neutrally summarizing what sources that comply with WP:MEDRS say about the topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, for advocacy or for righting great wrongs. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Please do not add sections titled "Sold and regulated by." DSHEA allows sale of dietary supplements without sufficient science support of efficacy. Lay readers assume that "regulated by," for example the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, means approval. This is not true. Under DSHEA and subsequent laws, dietary supplement manufacturers, have to comply with labeling and manufacturing rules, but again, not meaning efficacy. David notMD (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
David notMD Ok, I won't add these sections. Can I delete one that says specifically, exactly, actually because I copied it, that- or should I let someone else do it. 4Cancer (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Rating an article by a bot

I wish to know how to make a bot rate/assess an article based on the quality scale. I've seen some articles being done this way, and others being done by manually by a user. How can I "summon" this bot? It really helps to know at what level an article is at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portughetti (talkcontribs) 22:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the Teahouse, Portughetti. I was recently introduced to an interesting and useful little user script called WP:RATER which you might wish to install and experiment with. It's not a bot, but I think this might offer you what you seek. Give it a try! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
In addition to what Nick said above, you might be thinking of a bot that looks for articles that have been assessed by one WikiProject but not by others. It simply copies the existing assessment and adds it to banners of other relevant WikiProjects.– Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 00:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
It's probably worth me adding that Evad's Rater tool can also be used to quickly add WikiProjects to an article's talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"This article is of interest to these Wikiprojects..."

Hey! So I'm still extremely new to wikipedia editing (I still have to find another article to copy for things like tables and such.) Recently I took interest in a WikiProject called WP:SPEAK. I've taken notice of the category in the Talk page of every article "This article is of interest to these Wikiprojects." I'm wondering, should I add WP:SPEAK to this list, and if so, how so? For some clarification, I'm currently in the process of recording the Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini articles for WP:SPEAK. TheTeaDrinker (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey TheTeaDrinker. There is no hard and fast rule about what articles belong under which projects, and projects are more-or-less just a convenient way to organize content so that hopefully things are a bit easier to find. When in doubt, be bold and add the template if you feel it is appropriate. If anyone disagrees, then you can discuss it with them, and then explain that you added the tags because you are in the process of recording audio versions of the article. GMGtalk 15:39, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@TheTeaDrinker: The mentioned talk page feature is called WikiProject banners. The banners are added by templates like {{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}} which says: "Just add {{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}} to the top of the talk page of any spoken articles." If there are already WikiProject banners then add it next to them. In addition, {{Spoken Wikipedia}} automatically adds the article itself to Category:Spoken articles. The category currently has 1412 pages while a search [2] only finds 842 talk pages with the template so I guess many pages are missing it. It's odd that Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia doesn't mention the template. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Where should the discussion on notability take place for a draft article

Hi, is the talk page of a draft article the right place for the discussion on notability? If not, where is it? Thanks a lot. I have written a draft and I would appreciate feedback Best, Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos (talk) 08:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vasilis Theofylaktopoulos: The AFC help desk exists for this purpose - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:18, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Appropriate to nominate this article for deletion?

Given the rampant issues with criteria and notability, List of film director and actor collaborations seems like it would be suitable to be deleted on the rationale of WP:TNT. There hasn't been much discussion about the article, so would it be appropriate to nominate the article for this reason? Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: In my opinion, no. Firstly, WP:TNT is specifically not appropriate here - in fact it's almost never appropriate because it is for cases where a page is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia but has issues so severe that they cannot be resolved by normal editing. The assumption with WP:TNT is that the page would later be recreated in a better form. In this case a) I don't see any signs of problems so severe that normal editing can't resolve them, and b) your thinking seems to be that the page shouldn't exist at all, not that it should be deleted and then recreated.
So then the second question is should it be nominated for deletion under more normal criteria (i.e. failing WP:GNG)? I can see an argument for that, given the total lack of sources and the issues with inclusion criteria. However, I would be surprised if an AFD would !vote to delete, as I think sufficient sources are available to make this a worthwhile page, it just needs some close attention, discussion on the talk page to agree criteria, and a good edit. The fact that there hasn't been much discussion so far is not a reason to delete.
Overall, the only way to really find out if a page should be deleted is to nominate it, but I'd probably !vote to keep personally. Hugsyrup 12:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hugsyrup: Why do you think I think the article shouldn't exist at all? TNT is about the article specifically being recreated. I don't think the article fails GNG. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I assumed you had a good reason for thinking it should be deleted because I couldn’t understand from your question why you thought TNT was necessary, and I still can’t. What do you think deletion and recreation will achieve here that simply editing the page cannot? Hugsyrup 21:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
As I said, because of the rampant criteria and notability issues of the entries. Most of the entries don't belong in the article. These aren't notable collaborations. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: And as I said, these can be resolved through discussion and editing. I don't see any problems here that are so serious that only deletion and recreating can solve them. However, you asked for an opinion and I've given it. It seems that it wasn't the answer you wanted, but I'm not sure I have much else to add. If you feel the article warrants nomination for deletion then I suggest you do so. Hugsyrup 09:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I am unsure why you are using this tone with me. You said you did not understand why I thought TNT may apply, so I tried to make it clearer. I am not sure if this article should be nominated for deletion, which is why I am asking others. I agree that TNT is not the only way that such an article can be fixed, and I am not suggesting that. The point is that this is potentially a way that is better than any other method, to start again given that most of the entries don't belong in the article (and not that they are simply unsupported by references). To answer your question directly, (What do you think deletion and recreation will achieve here that simply editing the page cannot? which it appears I omitted to do, this would be because otherwise most of the article's content would be removed anyway. Are there any other places where I can take this question? It was suggested to me that I should ask Teahouse. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)