Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1049

Archive 1045

←

Archive 1047

Archive 1048

Archive 1049

Archive 1050

Archive 1051

→

Archive 1055

Wikipedia Related Question

I am a new editor in a course using the Wiki Education course program. My question relates to the classes given to each article. How are classes for each article determines and what classifications in forms of editing are looked at to determine the grade? Are there any tools that can help a new editor make their page stand out in order to earn a higher class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhocine (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dhocine: Check out this page: Wikipedia:Content_assessment. It has a nice table with details on what you are asking. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dhocine. You can also ask your course's Wiki-Ed advisor Shalor (Wiki Ed) about this at User talk:Shalor (Wiki Ed). -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Dhocine, also note that below Featured and good articles, which have an element of peer review, the bottom 5 layers don't have strict criteria, and can be set by anyone without discussion, hence can be a bit arbitrary and subjective. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:38, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Some projects have check list templates, I tested the "album class=B" procedure and failed with 5 of 6 for two albums (1 2), the latter because I was too lazy to verify 47 references, that takes hours. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What do i need to do before i can create my own article?

Hi. I would like to know, what must i do before i can start writing articles myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbob99 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sbob99, Writing articles is difficult. On a technical standpoint, however, you need to have an account registered for four days and have ten edits (I think). You can create the article as a draft immediately, however. It might be better to request the article's creation, though, so more experienced editors can help you create the article... King of Scorpions 19:41, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Help:Your first article provides some guidance. Wikipedia:Articles for creation provides process. Neither of these is about getting experienced editors to help you create an article. Rather, they provide instructions on whether a topic is article-worthy, and how to. Lastly, no one "owns" an article. With certain limits, once it exists, anyone can change it. David notMD (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, editors on this site are bipolar. I copied a page (a list of cake companines) and changed it to my subject and it was deleted- i forget why. Also, people delete my posts like a list of what stores sell like "clothes and appliances" an it was deleted becuase that "is advertising?!?!?!?!" Lastly, people here in general must be idiots. I created a page of the public elementary school i attended that closed 25 years ago. The page was deleted because "it promoted a busines". Get ready for stupid replies if u want to contribute. Have fun!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by The 0utsider1 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi The_0utsider1 regarding your school article. It appears that it was nominated for deletion because it "does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia". Not because it was due to being a "business". Hope that helps clarify that point.

Posting a New York Times Week in Review 1993 archival photo of Jewell Jackson McCabe Candidate for NAACP Presidency in 1993

We would like to post a New York Times archival photo on the Wikipedia page of feminist, businesswoman, activist — Jewell Jackson McCabe from her historic barrier breaking race in 1993 for President of the NAACP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.28.125 (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• There's several issues here. First, you say, "we". That makes me think you are representing some company or other organization. You should be aware that sharing of accounts is not allowed; see WP:NOSHARING for more about that. Also, see WP:COI for our policies about conflicts of interest and disclosure. As for the photo itself, if ran in the New York Times, they almost certainly own the copyright. In theory, you could contact the NYT and ask them to upload the photo to Commons and re-license it under one of our acceptable licenses, but it's exceptionally unlikely they would be willing to do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Jewell Jackson McCabe [1] Post: New York Times “Week and Review”1993 Archival Photo Head Shot of Jewell Jackson McCabe Candidate for NAACP President

Trying to have Wikipedia update Jewell Jackson McCabes Wikipedia profile to include photo of her groundbreaking first woman in 1993 serious candidate for NAACP President. The Sunday April 1993 the NYTS Week and Review section — cover page lower left hand corner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijounoir13 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Bijounoir13: The enwiki "fair use" rules for living people are simply no, the theory is that it should be easy to take a new photo and publish it under a free licence. Google image search supports to search for a free image, if you click on "tool". There's nothing for Jewell Jackson McCabe, if you select "any reuse with modifications", in the terminology of Creative Commons that can be CC0 (public domain, e.g., works by the US-Government), CC-BY (by attribution, credits required), or CC-BY-SA (ditto, share alike), but not ND (no derivatives = no modification) and also not NC (non-commercial)
When I tried my luck with a non-free "fair use" photo of a female UAE engineer extracted from a non-free video it got deleted, because I didn't know this enwiki-rule boiling down to have camera and travel to Arabia for a snapshot. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

How to get a Wikipedia authorized photo posted on my Wikipedia page

requesting a Wikipedia approved photo on my Wikipedia page Jewell Jackson McCabe  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bijounoir13 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bijounoir13 this was already answered a few sections up, under the heading "Posting a New York Times Week in Review 1993 archival photo of Jewell Jackson McCabe Candidate for NAACP Presidency in 1993". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Jewell Jackson McCabe. The article should have a photo. Bijounoir13 If you want to contact Mrs. McCabe and see if she has another photo that she owns the copyright to or one which the photographer will assign rights to Wikipedia, there are instructions here Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries. If you get stuck you can ping me on my talk page. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Trying to learn wikipedia

I've been using Wikipedia for over a decade and have always wanted to learn more about contributing. Is this idea for an article for my local utility company not viable? I used TECO, Tampa Electric, as a pillar for constructing this one? Admittedly I made mistakes originally in citations. Is there any glaring issue that I'm not seeing in the latest update that was rejected? Could it also be related to the length of the article? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lakeland_Electric Galehaut2 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Galehaut2: No opinion on whether the draft should be accepted or rejected, but a reasonable alternative at present would to be create Lakeland Electric as a redirect to the section at Lakeland, Florida#Utilities and to include the information there. If there becomes too much information to be covered in the article about Lakeland, a separate article could then be created. FDW777 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

how to update modified hyperlink in references, notes, etc..

suppose gghgv.ffg/fggv moved to gghgv.ffg/hhg/fggv, how should i proceed ? Leela52452 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

If the reference at the new url still supports the text where it is being used, just change the url and update the access-date to the date you checked. --David Biddulph (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Support in Wiki Bio Page for Prominent Journalist in Atlanta

Hello! Lots of thanks to the Wikipedia community for supporting me as I cut my teeth in this Wiki world. I am based in D.C., but interested in providing due diligence to leaders in Atlanta, especially those who are not yet recognized in Wikipedia. I have an interest in mega-sporting events in particular and I appreciate that Wikipedia has a great article on the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and Paralympics already. That said, I am facing challenges in my first stab at a Wiki bio for a journalist in Atlanta. It has been declined twice due to a lack of secondary sources. Fully understood that bios, in particular, need to stick to high non partisan and accurate standards with legitimate third party justifications/resources. So, I am wondering if I add all of the additional below links in this message to the Wikipedia draft on Philip Bolton, would this beefed up version have a chance at qualifying? Are the AJC, Georgia State University, Georgia Tech, the French-American Chamber of Commerce, the Liberian Consulate, the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, and other listed outlets not considered verifiable sources? I have read the guidance and they should fit the bill. I am also curious as to why this Phil Bolton profile was rejected, but the profile for another legitimate mover and shaker in Atlanta was published in Wikipedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Hula I don't see much difference in content and I thought that Wikipedia was about consistency. Please advise. Thanks!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mtrinab/sandbox

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/heads-professional-cricket-coming-atlanta/yXnqkELRjkaJrdRns8y8cP/ https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/globalism-becoming-dirty-gop-word-and-that-bodes-ill-for-the-southern-economy/Y2RAELH25vjIl2fmwxeq2J/ https://www.ajc.com/entertainment/atlanta-host-celebration-african-culture-2014/usXMaEuGNnMU42MSCG96NM/ http://www.international.gouv.qc.ca/en/atlanta/actualites/12635 http://www.hubga.com/tag-press-release/phil-bolton-president-of-agio-press-inc-publisher-of-global-atlanta-recognized-for-lifetime-international-achievement/ https://www.facc-atlanta.com/about-us/board-of-directors.html http://julius_lee.tripod.com/id421.html http://www.khabar.com/magazine/around-town/remembrance-meetings-for-late-dr-l-s-narasimhan-narsi http://atlantadunia.com/Dunia/News09/N2017/N1205.aspx https://georgiadec.com/membership/ https://deanruskintlaw.com/2017/01/23/belgian-consul-general-de-baets-featured-at-global-atlanta-luncheon/ https://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2016/04/06/aif-atlanta-gala-honors-ceos-ups-xylem/ http://www.philippinesusa.info/news/4919/300/AMBASSADOR-CUISIA-LEADS-ECONOMIC-DIPLOMACY-MISSION-IN-ATLANTA/d,phildet/ https://talkingbiznews.com/we-talk-biz-news/how-globalatlanta-com-covers-international-news-with-a-local-perspective/ https://ce.gatech.edu/news/lindsey-tells-global-atlanta-her-internship-nepal-showed-her-power-earthquake-engineering http://www.jasgeorgia.org/page-18276

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Hula — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtrinab (talk • contribs) 17:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Mrtinab. I'm not going to plough through that list of bare URLs to see if any of them are useful for establishing notability (though I observe that blogs are very rarely regarded as reliable, and that any URL called "aboutus" or "membership" is unlikely to be independent). The issue is not the number of sources, but their quality: are there three or four sources, either currently in the draft, or in the list above, which are reliable (i.e. published by somewhere that has a reputation for editorial control and fact checking), independent (i.e., written and published by people wholly unconnected with Bolton or any organisation he is part of, and not based on a press release or interview) and substantial (i.e. not just a passing reference, or a listing, but actually has at least a couple of paragraphs about him)? If you can find those three or four, you can use them to demonstrate that he passes Wikipedia's criteria for notability. The rest might be useful for supporting specific claims in the article, but do not contribute to notability, and are a distraction at this stage.

As for Ed Hula it doesn't look as if that established his notability either: looking at the url's of the nine references, only three are even possibly reliable and independent. Most of the work on that article was back in 2011, when we were less careful about quality than we are now: ideally it would either be improved, or deleted. Please see OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --ColinFine (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

In fact, I doubt if Ed Hula is notable, and have tagged the article as possibly not-notable. The article Around the Rings also has a lack of independent sources, and I have tagged that accordingly. --ColinFine (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Can someone please edit the date someone died for me? Thank you.

Hello

I recently found my grandfather's wiki page. The date stated on Wikipedia that he died is incorrect. I'd like that changed. I don't want to login and create an account, so could someone edit it for me? His name is Wally Green and he was a UK based Speedway rider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wally_Green

He died on 11 December 2006, not 2007 as published.

Thank you.

Sally — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.45 (talk) 11:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Sally. I changed it to 2007 per this source [2], but it's not a very good source. Do you know of a better one, like an obituary or something like that? It doesn't have to be online, but it helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. That source is wrong. It was 2006 not 2007. I can't link to an online obituary I'm afraid, but since I am related to him, and went to his funeral, I cam confirm 2006 is correct. I appreciate I am asking you to take my word for it, and this maybe against your policy, but if you could change it I would be grateful. Thanks again for looking into this for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.118 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Situation now is 2006 with a citation needed tag. An obituary reference does not need to be on line, but does need to have been published. Just provide name of newspaper and date and if possible, page.

And I'd like to state that I misread your initial statement, I thought 2007 was what you wanted. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that you don't need an account to edit most articles/pages. You and I have been editing this very page, with edits attributed to our respective IP addresses 194.75.231.3 (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The GRO Index contains this entry: GREEN, WALTER STANLEY; 1918; DOR Q4/2006 in Barnet (2191A) Reg A11E Entry Number 230. In other words, a Walter Stanley Green born in Barnet, London in 1918 had their death registered in Q4/2006. There are no GRO entries for a 1918 birth with a 2007 death. So while it isn't sufficient to prove the date of death (you'd have to order the certificate to get the actual dates, etc.), it's sufficient to conclude 2006 is the more probable year of death. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

QuiteUnusual As in General Register Office? Since WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply, I have no problem with you using that as a ref (I'm not sure how), and specific date can be removed from the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes the General Register Office. The problem is I don't know if "Green, Walter Stanley; 1918" is the Wally Green who is the subject of the article. I think it probably is, but without the certificate it is an assumption based on there being no other Walter Green born in London in 1918. That's why I wasn't comfortable using it as a reference. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I've seen multiple instances of conflicting birthyears before about the middle of the last century (sometimes unresolvable, even in my own family), so using birthyear as a key would seem to be a problem, especially with what seems might be a common name. How many other Walter Greens born +/- 2 years are there? Has someone done a newspaper archive dig for an obit? Grave registries? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Which language is old Hindi or Urdu

I want to add that Hindustani is a part of Hindi dialects, so it is very important for me that, Hindi came first or Urdu, please tell me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogstar (talk • contribs) 19:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fogstar: The Teahouse is not the right place for this question. Please read the recent discussions at Talk:Hindustani, and don't edit the article to add text that goes against the consensus on that talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 20:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

New to Wiki- Disclosing a COI and How to suggest Edits to a wikipage

Hello, I am new to wiki and need some advise. My employer has proposed that I make factual additions and edits to a city wiki page, however, I am an employee of that "city" and that would be considered a COI. Can someone guide me and tell me where I can disclose that or what my steps would be? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CTX001 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi CTX001. You should find some general guidance about this in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You might also want to take a look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content, Wikipedia: Verifiability, not truth and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. You should try and explain these things to your employer because they might not really understand what Wikipedia is about and how it tends to work. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@CTX001: Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for asking about conflict-of-interest. In addition to the links above, please read WP:PAID about the requirement to disclose paid editing. RudolfRed (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with Proposing Deletion for a Page

On WP:PRODNOM, one of the steps to do before proposing deletion include: "Confirm the page is eligible for proposed deletion by checking that:

   it has not previously been proposed for deletion.
   it has not previously been undeleted.
   and it is not, nor has ever been, discussed at AfD/FfD."

How do you check if an article has been previously proposed for deletion, been undeleted, or been discussed in Articles for Deletion or FfD? Also, what is FfD? Whisperjanes (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

You can check the article's history for any mention of a previous PROD. You can also check the article's talk page for an {{old prod}} template.

The log file for the article should show if the article has been undeleted.

You can see whether WP:Articles for deletion/your article title exists.

FfD is WP:Files for discussion, the equivalent of AFD but for images and other media files. --David Biddulph (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! That's cleared it right up for me. Do you think this might be worth suggesting to be added to WP:PRODNOM? As a fairly new user, I spent a long time looking for how to complete those steps, but your explanation is simple and short enough (and is hard to find elsewhere on Wikipedia) --Whisperjanes (talk) 08:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Go ahead, Whisperjanes. If you have helpful information to add to a guidance page, it is usually worth being BOLD and just adding it. It is unlikely that anybody will disagree, though people might perhaps want to edit your insertion for accuracy or greater clarity. If they do, project pages have talk pages where you can discuss it, just like articles. --ColinFine (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Help on Publishing Draft Article

Hello am so glad to be part in Wikipedia. I like to have help on how to publish my article Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute on Live Space. Thank You.--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sandrah.Akol: I have placed a banner at the top of your draft with a submit button. When you press that, the draft will be submitted for review. However, please do not submit it yet as it is very unlikely to be accepted. You must add multiple, reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in depth. A google maps location is not a suitable source, nor is a link to another Wikipedia page, and nor is a notice from the organisation itself (as this is not independent). Hug^syrup 08:57, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, Sandrah.Akol. Please read about notability: Wikipedia does not contain articles about every organisation that exists, only about the ones that people unconnected with have chosen to write about somewhere. --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sandrah.Akol Though you submitted it against the advice given here, you will still need to address the issues pointed out here. You may do so while the draft is awaiting review. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia be 'edited' by users uploading structured statistical data records?

Is there a way for users to 'edit' Wikipedia with structured data? For example, how could Wikipedia be used as a repository for sightings of the Antipodean Albatross? I'm thinking of a database of sightings with records including:

• Wikipedia Name of reporter
• Date & time of report
• Date & time of sighting
• Geolocation of sighting
• Relevant fields (male, female, juvenile, etc. etc.)
• Notes (free text)

Then the Wikipedia page could display statistical data (graphs, maps, etc.) based on these data points. This data could be filtered by, for example, sighting date range, season range (over multiple years), male, female, juvenile, etc.

This ability to store publicly recorded data would appear to be consistent with the Five pillars philosophy...

Thanks for any suggestions,

Mark.

Gwalior84 (talk) 06:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gwalior84: This sounds like original research, so no, I don't believe it would be appropriate (and Wikidata is a better repository for raw data). I think Google has a facility for shared documents/spreadsheets/etc. and I'm sure there are others. Perhaps someone else will comment. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 06:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1: Thanks for your speedy response! Yes, I see that this would be original research, so not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm familiar with shared / public Google documents - that might work for this sort of thing... I'll explore Wikidata.

@Gwalior84: You asked a great question - thank you. I used to run a Biological Records Centre myself, and appreciate where you're coming from. AlanM1 gave you the right answer, but I would just add the remark that inserting an External Link at the bottom of the relevant taxon's page is a perfect way to help readers find further information and distributional data, providing the dataset you link to is properly established and the most relevant organisational one to use, and that its addition 'adds to the encyclopaedic value of the article. Hope this helps, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Notable vs Sufficiently Notable-What is the standard?

Good Morning,

Article-The Toven

The article title above (The Toven) was apparently rejected. Reason; "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia". Please breakdown the meaning of "sufficiently" as it relates to notable. As I understand the guidelines. "notable" is the requirement and while accompanied with the word "sufficiently" can come off as ambiguous and unclear to the author. Currently I can find no such language in Wikipedia guidelines and rules referring to the phrase "Not Sufficiently Notable". Please assist with pointing this verbiage out if I am missing something.

Respectfully submitted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiritletters (talk • contribs) 15:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The link which you were given was to WP:Notability. You need to read that, and the links from it. The primary requirement is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." One thing which you may not yet have realised is that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, see circular. Unfortunately nearly all links which you used as "references" in Draft:The Toven were to Wikipedia; 2 others are to the subject's own website. You therefore need to find independent published reliable sources which discuss the subject in detail. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I think possibly you meant to cite something like [3], but you cited WP-articles instead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

'Sufficiently' means "meeting the requirements". "Sufficiently notable" would just mean "notable enough", 'sufficiently' itself is not specific terminology or jargon. Of course Wikipedia Notability is a specific term which is a binary thing; a subject is either notable or it isn't, it can't be a little notable but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. It could, however, be the case that a subject is notable in the common sense but not sufficiently notable (not notable enough) to meet Wikipedia's definition of Notability. Does that make sense? 194.75.231.3 (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

European Semester

Hello, While reading the article on theEconomic and Monetary Union of the European Union i discovered that there is no article on the European Semester which is a framework for coordinating member states' economic policies. I would therefore like to write an article on the European Semester. Do you think it is a notable topic? Do you have any suggestions on how to go forward?Everine Akello (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Or should i just build on the main article by including a section on the European Semester?Everine Akello (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Everine Akello, I would personally include it on the main article. If it turns out that there's too much information about it there, you can always split it into two. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Making Distribution Maps

Hello to all!

Recently, I decided to make some (still not existent) pages for the isopod species that occur in Greece. In these pages, except for the known information and the bibliography/references, I would like to add some self-made distribution maps, based on the literature. The question is: How can I make those maps? I must specify that I don't want to make something elaborate, just simple, "color-the-blank-map" pictures, like the already existent distribution map of Armadillidium klugii (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillidium_klugii#cite_note-klugiigroup-2). Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks! Xeroporcellio (talk) 12:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Xeroporcellio - we have a few tutorials about making maps at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources/Tutorials and general graphics resources at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Resources. Very briefly, the basic idea is to (1) find a map image in SVG format, like the one in the article above, (2) bring it into an editor like Inkscape that can edit SVG images, and (3) add your own range polygon on top of it. It is good practice when uploading images like species ranges to state the source from which you derived the range. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Banned from WIkipedia

Hello - years ago I wrote an article about an early video group of which I was a part - this group was setup in 1977 (that's pretty early for video and part of the history). I was immediately banned from wiipedia by a moderator and in the past I have seen a page where other moderators tried reasoning with him for banning me. When I wrote the article I didn't actually realise that you couldn't write about something you were involved in so I made a mistake but somehow that seems to have been a lifetime ban.

Friends in other countries have tried writing things about me but they have been taken down too. Presumably there's a system where banning sticks.

I think the argument was that I was of no consequence at the time or something like that. In fact I'm now 67, I've been a professor of Cinematography, I've organised Cinematography Festivals, I've exhibited art in many cathedrals and represented internationally by a leading agency - I shot the world's third electronically gathered feature film in 1986, etc, etc and the little history I wrote way back when is still of relevance, especially as there is generally a concerted and systemic eradication of early histories of cybernetic media as they conflict with what academia tends to propose as 'the real history'. And yes you might argue I'm a little paranoid. I've always thought of wikipedia as being a counter to that tendency but I'm wondering if anyone can track down if my ban still exists and particularly - is it just? Maybe if the original moderator that hit so hard back then is still alive he/she might have a rethink? What constitutes the decision on whether or not an event, a person, a life is worth a mention on wikipedia - or not?

Terry Flaxton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Flaxton (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Terry Flaxton: I suspect there is a bit of confusion here. A 'ban' is something that happens to an editor if they are disruptive, but from what you are saying, and me doing a bit of searching, I suspect that you have not been banned but simply that an article about you has been deleted for various reasons. Assuming this is the page [4] I can see a history of deletions due to the subject not being notable, and due to copyright infringement. None of this means the page is 'banned' - if you believe you meet Wikipedia's standards for notability and, from the sound of your career, the specific standards for artists and film professionals then you can create a page through the WP:AFC process and submit it for review. However, please read WP:AUTO about the perils of creating an autobiography, and also WP:COI about editing with a conflict of interest. Hug^syrup 14:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to add, I suspect you are also Trflaxton (talk · contribs)? Could I suggest that you put a notification on your new user page as such: {{User previous account|Trflaxton}} and, if you still have access to the old account, be sure not to edit using both of them or that could be considered sockpuppetry. Hug^syrup 14:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

if am writing about a person who is social worker

what kind of information/coverage and citations are preferred? Please also suggest some tips and tricks so next time my page would be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DivyaSethia (talk • contribs) 13:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@DivyaSethia: our page about reliable sources gives a good overview of the sort of sources that are preferred. The best tip I can give is at WP:GOLDENRULE - your topic will be accepted if you can show significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. If the coverage is brief/passing, or if the sources aren't reliable, or if they are not independent, then the article won't be accepted no matter how many citations you add. Hug^syrup 14:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Need help with an article's references

Hi fellow Wikipedians, I need help with an article's references. I am trying to publish an article on a Canadian journalist and diversity consultant, Hamlin Grange. However, I've tried to follow multiple reviews and guidelines provided by 3 different editors, resulting in a great deal of confusion. If somebody can please provide some clarification and review it now, that would be really helpful. The references include the following:

• Feature in Who's who in Black Canada 2
• An article on the subject in the Globe and Mail. It is the most widely read newspaper in Canada.
• Significant coverage in a HuffPost Canada article. Huffington Post is also a popular and reliable news media outlet.
• Coverage in a book on racial bias published by University of Toronto press.
• Significant coverage in an article in Ryerson Review of Journalism.

The subject has significant secondary notability, as well. He is a recipient of several awards and honors, all of which are covered independently in the aforementioned sources. He has published papers and co-authored 2 books with his wife. He serves on the board of several private and government organizations. All of this is covered in the sources above and others cited in the article.

I have seen articles with much less credibility and reliable sources assessed and published on Wikipedia. At this point, I am confused as to what I am doing wrong. One of the reviewers told me yesterday that the subject may be notable, but I need to fix inline citations. Another one told me today that I need to add more reliable sources. One other reviewer told me that there should be at least 3 reliable sources, which I have provided.

Sorry for the long post, but really need some clarification here. Thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Here is a small tidbit of clarification, FelixtheNomad. The article WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS states Wikipedia's policy on poorly sourced articles. I wish it was mandatory reading, as those useless articles are misleading a lot of new editors.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Quisqualis for your response and sharing this link. I agree, it should be mandatory reading. I will, therefore, quote something from it

"This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. Though a lot of Wikipedia's styles are codified in policy, to a large extent minor details are not.".

My question remains. I do not want to argue over why other articles exist and this one cannot. I am trying to discuss the problem with this article and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not answer that. FelixtheNomad (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy link Draft:Hamlin Grange and also pinging John from Idegon as the most recent reviewer. shoy (reactions) 15:02, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had a quick run of the sources from a notability point of view. I think the Globe and Mail + Ryerson pieces, together, carry the day; however, you are not helped by the inclusion of subpar sources. Clearly other editors might have other opinions: WP:GNG says "multiple sources are generally expected"; my interpretation is that "multiple" starts at two, but I know others consider three a bare minimum; on the other hand, I am probably more picky than most about which sources qualify.

1. [5] is probably worthless. I strongly suspect a Who's Who scam (where you get a notice as long as you pay); the GH entry looks OK, but the next one is for a math teacher with no apparent claim to fame that says "over the years, he received praise from students and colleagues".
2. [6] is meh (no critical coverage, just an interview)
3. [7] Site header says "Corporate Communications, Writer & Photographer". 'nough said.
4. [8] is OK I think, though not very detailed
5. I cannot access [9]
6. [10] is a blog piece that contains Actually, I know who Hamlin Grange is. He's an old friend.... Well, it's honest at least, but it's not independent.
7. [11] is an interview (for the relevant part), not independent
8. [12] are plainly WP:ROUTINE mentions
9. [13] - interview, not independent (and a rather softball interview FWIW)
10. [14] is actually good
11. I cannot access [15] but I strongly suspect it's a blog based on the URL
12. [16] passing mention
13. [17] an award has value proportional to how well-respected the organization that gives it out is. I suspect Reelworld (red link) is not a significant organization but have not looked in detail.

Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@FelixtheNomad: For HuffPost check out the "reliable sources perennial" list, RS/P, popular and reliable news media outlet does not at all describe the consensus here, it even got its own WP:HUFFPO shortcut. –84.46.53.42 (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Hi, thank you for the elaborate response. This clears up a bunch of stuff I was confused with. Can you help me with another minor query, please? I've been reading about article assessments and I think this one can fall under a start class article based on current primary and secondary notability. Is that right? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 14:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I've been wanting to write an article about someone named "Muammer Topalı". He's known as "Taksim Dayı" on the internet. He became famous after trying to answer some questions in street interview. The interview was in English but he could only speak english so he tried to answer the questions with unintelligible sounds. He's extremely famous in Turkey but he only appears on youtube. He was recently on a local television channel in Turkey. The video of him that was on television was the uploaded to youtube on their channel (their as in the local television channels Youtube channel). I believe Youtube isn't considered a reliable source no matter how reliable the channel is. There aren't any other sources so how can I write an article about him? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: unfortunately, if there aren't many sources then that suggests he probably isn't notable by Wikipedia's standards. If independent, reliable sources haven't chosen to write about this individual, then nor should Wikipedia. In this specific case, it sounds like a clear case of a person who is 'famous' only for one single event and will almost certainly not have any enduring significance. Such people are usually not suitable for encyclopedia articles. Hug^syrup 14:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Presumably you didn't read the answers which you received at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#New Article and at WP:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#Question. --David Biddulph (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

It's me again, Rodrigo Valequez. I read the answers but other questions popped into my head:

• 1)Could I write about him if there were more sources?
• 2)Is the News video of him considered reliable even though it's on youtube?
• 3)An interview caused his popularity but his constant appearances on the media has also had a significant effect. Does that count as being famous for one single event?

Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez:In answer to your questions:

1. Probably not, because he is still only known for one event and there is no sign of lasting notability. However it might depend on the coverage he received.
2. Perhaps, but the original news video is a primary source so it does not establish notability.
3. Yes. Unless he goes on to be known for other things, or this single event propels him to lasting fame that means he is still receiving coverage years after the fact.

Hug^syrup 14:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Would it be more appropriate to write about the individual in the Turkish Wikipedia and translate it since around 70% of all Turkish individuals with access to social media know about him? If I went to Istanbul and found this man, then interviewed him and recorded a video or wrote an article on another website about him. Would the information be considered reliable? (If he was known for other things.) Sorry for bugging you with these questions by the way. Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, that would be considered original research, which is not allowed.

Additionally, all the different language Wikipedias are functionally independent, and an article on one isn't automatically permitted on all the others. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. My questions have been answered, for now. My questions are endless, the wikipedia community shall never sleep again. I-I me-mean umm-uh.. forget what I said. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

adding an item to a category

How do you add an item to a certain category? For instance, if I wanted to add "Random page" to "Category:Random pages" (these are just examples), how would I do so? Thanks, King of Scorpions (my talk) 22:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions the same method you'd normally use to link to a page, I.e. [[category:category name]]. Convention is categorises are the last thing on the page. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 23:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, because of this, if you want to link to a category add a : before category, as in [[:category:animals]] ~~ Alex Noble - talk 23:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@King of Scorpions: To put that another way, if you want to talk about a category on a discussion page (like this one) be sure to put a colon (":") before "Category" (e.g., [[:Category:Random pages]], which renders as Category:Random pages) so it doesn't actually put the talk page in that category. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:50, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, also wp:hotcat, found on Preferences -> Gadgets -> Editing, is a very useful tool that gives a box to add categories to the end of each article, which does things like suggesting category names. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone! I really appreciate the help! King of Scorpions (my talk) 17:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Help me

I would like to learn how to edit on wiki properly so if you could can you please give me all the help you have. ( im a complete beginner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanometer545 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nanometer545: Welcome to Wikipedia. Check out the interactive learning game WP:ADVENTURE and also the tutorial at WP:TUTORIAL. These should help you get started. If you run into a specific question, please come back and ask. RudolfRed (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you belatedly

You may see a note HERE from Kingsif regarding a request to the Teahouse for asssistance editors rendered. He asks that I extend a thank you from him, so do please consider it extended. I apologize for the untimely nature of my passing the message; I only just noticed it. And I did thank the particular editor who assisted me at the time of his assistance. We are trying to create a GA for [New Albion] and the work provided by the Teahouse was important. We do appreciate it.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

how to contact with wikipedia authors?

I'm writing is order to check how can I contact with wikipedia authors - my previous question was deleted as it was mentioning my new website promoting knowledge sharing... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.39.202 (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello anon. This is not a place for you to contact people in order to promote your website. GMG^talk 14:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@217.17.39.202: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Brittanica or Encarta. It's not a forum, social media site, or promotion platform. Please see WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOTSOCIAL, WP:PROMO, etc.. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we refer to celebrities by their stage name or their real name?

Hi everyone, long-time lurker here who recently started editing more frequently. I'm a copyeditor affiliated with GOCE and am currently editing a requested article on a subject whose real name is being used instead of his stage name, which is the title of the article. Should I switch each instance of his real name into his stage name? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 20:35, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Tenryuu Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Guidance in this area can be found at WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia does not necessarily use official or legal names, it uses whatever most reliable sources use. Example, Bill Clinton, not William Jefferson Clinton(his legal name). 331dot (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps a more pertinent example; Adele, not Adele Adkins. 331dot (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

And definitely not Reg Dwight! But, as you can see, a WP:REDIRECT serves a useful purpose. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thanks for the link! I'll give it a read. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 23:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Is MakerDAO notable?

I was considering writing an article on the decentralised autonomous organisation MakerDAO (https://makerdao.com/en/) on the Ethereum blockchain. I'd like to know if this is considered 'notable'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilf6 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wilf6Wilf6: Check out WP:NCORP for the guidelines on notability for businesses. RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wilf6: Be advised that you will need really good, independent and Reliable Sources to have an article accepted on this topic. There have been many attempts at promoting topics related to blockchain/cryptocurrency. For that reason, all editors working in this are need to be aware that special sanctions are in force on these subjects, and that extra care needs to be taken not to breach our guidelines. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies for more details. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

split Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China

This is an editor that usually work in Chinese WP. Having read some essays, Chorographies, and reports from Chinese Railway Co. nowadays, I am now clear of the timeline of Peking-Mukden Railway, and come up with some ideas:

• The contents related to the company "Imperial Chinese Railways(ICR)" should be moved to a new article to elaborate on the development of this company;
• The contents related to the construction and service of the tramway should be separated in several phases:
  • Sections west(inside) of the (Shanhai)Pass:
    • Tangshan - Xugezhuang tramway(1881)→Tangshan - Lutai Tramway(1887)→Tangshan - Tanggu - Tianjin Railway(1888)→;
    • Guye - Tianjin Railway(1890)→;
    • Tianjin - Yuguan(nowadays Shanhai Pass) Railway(1894);
    • When the first-built Kaiping Tramway extended to Yuguan and Tianjin, the Railway from Lugouqiao to Tianjin was completed in 1897;
  • Sections east(outside) of the Pass:
    • From Shanhai Pass to Suizhong(1891-1894)
    • extension to Dahushan(1895-1900)
    • extension to Xinmin(1900-1904)
    • extension to Mukden(1904-1912)
  • In 1907, the Peking - Mukden Railway Administration, affiliated to the Ministry of Posts and Communications, was set up and the Railway from Peking to Shanhai Pass was renamed as "Peking - Mukden Railway".

After listing the outline, I suggest that the history, from the Plan of Kaiping Tramway to the extension to Tianjin, can be regarded as a complete phase(from proposition to extension) and kept in this article, while the extension to Shanhai Pass should be moved to a new article called "Peking - Mukden Railway", under a section called "the construction of the inside-of-the-pass section"; similarly, the extensions to Mukden should be moved to article "Peking - Mukden Railway" under a section called "the construction of the outside-of-the-pass section".

PS: The Peking-Mukden Railway was split in 1932 into 2 sections: the section inside the pass and that outside of the pass, since the Manchukuo, under the support of Japanese Invaders, controlled the section outside of the pass and renamed it as "Mukden-Shanhai Pass Railway"; at the same time, the the section inside of the pass was renamed as "Peiping-Shanhai Pass Railway".

These are the ideas I have.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC) PS:the draft I wrote for Peking-Mukden Railway.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Johnson.Xia. It would probably be better for you discuss your ideas on the corresponding talk pages of the articles which you want to change because that's where any consensus is likely going to need to be established. You can of course just be WP:BOLD if you think your ideas would improve the articles, but sometimes it can be better to be a little WP:CAUTIOUS when making major revisions. If you do decide to be BOLD but are subsequently WP:REVERTed by another editor, then follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and try to sort things out through discussion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I come here because there is no response on the corresponding discussion page.Johnson.Xia (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to have responded to your query at Talk:Kaiping Tramway#suggestion for split after nine months (other than a sort of related post by Robert McClenon from about a month ago) then you probably just can be BOLD and follow WP:SPLIT; if, however, do want some additional input, then you can also try asking at WT:CHINA and WT:TRAINS. Some articles just don't seem to attract as many watchers as others; so, often an article talk page post can go quite a long time without receiving any response or even never receive a response at all. In such cases, you might have more luck asking for help at any WikiProjects whose scope the article may fall under. Asking here at the Teahouse is certainly OK, but you might find editors more familiar with the subject matter at a WikiProject. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:31, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

This seemed like a reasonable thing to do, a month ago. It still seems reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Johnson.Xia: Also, you don't have to post the entire proposal again at WT:CHINA and WT:TRAINS – just a short summary and link to the original proposal, like maybe "I have made a proposal regarding spliting the Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China at Talk:Kaiping Tramway and Imperial Railways of North China#suggestion for split. Members of this project are requested to contribute. Thanks!". This should help keep the discussion all in one place. Good luck. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 04:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

THX to your advice.Johnson.Xia (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia article talks about what sources can be used from different websites?

I have used it before, but I can't remember it's name. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 18:49, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​The long list of websites is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources – Thjarkur (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​Yep, that's the one. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 20:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Note that that list is just a list of sources that have been repeatedly discussed – there are many other reliable sources that are not in the list. You have to evaluate such sources based on the criteria in WP:RS, the general "tone" of articles in the source, maybe searching for how often it is cited on Wikipedia, and searching for discussions about it at WP:RSN (there's a searchbox called "Search the noticeboard archives" opposite the table of contents after the navbox and all the notices). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 23:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Thatoneweirdwikier, additionally to that, the new page reviewers have a slightly more extensive list at Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide ~~ Alex Noble - talk 07:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

How to create an article

How do you create an article that’s subject isn’t in red? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtistBookGirl (talk • contribs) 05:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@ArtistBookGirl: If the link is already blue, that means that someone has already created an article with that name. If that article is about a different subject, have a read of WP:DISAMBIG. Victor Schmidt mobil (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:Your first article gives you advice on creating an article. If you create a draft and it is approved at AFC review, the reviewer will sort out the disambiguation. --David Biddulph (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Se John Smith for extreme example of articles with a shared name that needed to be differentiated via disambigulation. David notMD (talk) 09:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Random question

So, i went to view the edit history of a page, and i noticed that next to each edit, there's always a number that's either green with a plus sign, or red with a minus sign. Does anyone know what these are? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbob99 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

It's explained at Help:Page history. It tells you the number of bytes added or subtracted by the edit. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Central Universities Commom Entrance Test

I have created the article Central Universities Commom Entrance Test on 27 January which is not be reviewed till now. How long time it would take to be reviewed ?HRC491 (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

According to WP:NPP there are 7439 total unreviewed pages, of which the oldest is over 6000 days. Not many date back further than September 2019. Before it is reviewed you may want to move the article to correct the spelling in the article title. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

can I add contents from non-free resources (copyrights)

I've read about copyrights but I don't understand that if I don't include the original content can I still use it (e.g. a non-free book) for citation? (thanks) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Et0zl (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Et0zl: the short answer is, yes, provided you summarize the original content in your own words and don't either copy it or closely paraphrase it (see WP:Close paraphrasing), and you include a reference to it. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome to the Teahouse, Et0zl. Whilst you may not copy/paste text directly from a copyrighted book or article into Wikipedia, we do encourage you to cite that book as a reference, providing it is a reliable publication, independent of the subject being written about (i.e. not an autobiography). Tn other words, there is no copyright issue about using a book title (and author details etc) as a reference. I have written a little guide to assist in understanding how to insert inline citations into articles (see WP:EASYREFBEGIN). Do let us know how you get on, and if you provide a link to an article, we can check it's OK for you. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Just for the sake of completeness, you can also use non-free content in brief attributed quotations. But you should use such quotations sparingly - more detailed guidance about appropriate encyclopedic usages can be found at MOS:QUOTE. GermanJoe (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Content

I live in Turkey at the moment and if I were to collect information physically, would that be considered as reliable information or would I have to somehow publish the information on a reliable website? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Rodrigo Valequez - that would clearly be original research which is never allowed on Wikipedia - Arjayay (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Then how is research collected? Does wikipedia only take information from reliable websites or already available content and post it? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Almost, we don't "take information" wholesale, as that would be a copyright violation. We only use information that has already been published, be that on the internet, in books or journals, by reliable publishers that have a reputation for fact checking - Arjayay (talk) 16:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

That's what I meant as in take, sorry. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

​Are you referring to citing physical sources (such as books at a library) that aren't available online? If so, yes you can use them as sources if they have been published and if they are reliable. This is further explained under Wikipedia:Verifiability#Accessibility. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

So I could use reliable published books even if they aren't available online? Thanks for the info. Regards,Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: Yes, reliably published (i.e. not self-published) books definitely don't have to have been published online for you to use them. It helps to ensure you include a page number in your citation, especially if it's a big book. That way, anyone accessing the book in a library can easily verify what you have added. See my guidance notes at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. I also try to explain there how you can use one reference multiple times, and how you can add a different page number each time you use the same citation. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks for the info. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

inconsistent and please proof read on Vaccines for Children Program

i could not make any sense about "Records indicate that after from 1994-2012 after immunizations began to rise diseases such as Polio decrease drastically as well as Hepatitis B". reference 18 format is also broke, it might be referring to https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6316a3.htm?s_cid=mm6316a3_w Leela52452 (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leela52452. The vest place for content-related discussion of an article is on its talk page, so I would suggest posting your question there. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The text in question was added in this edit. You could try asking the editor concerned, but he/she doesn't seem to have edited since that day. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

References in a new article

I want to know if normal academic reference signs are applicable with wikipedia. for example in the sentence; The founder of the community is called Edem1. The 1 after Wdem is actually a superscript in which the 1 stands on top right of m. Is acceptable with wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HOPHXY (talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, references are given superscripted reference numbers automatically, see Help:Referencing for beginners. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Untrue but referenced

I'm a newbie and here mostly to patch internal inconsistencies but don't know how to address them, please help.

An article contains a statement which, despite its reference, is not true. By it not being true I mean I can provide a different reference giving a conflicting statement. Should both be included? Should a 'reference duel' be initiated to decide which statement is true? What is the established way to solve such issues? Kuiet (talk) 00:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I should expand on my predicament:

Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete
— Race (human categorization)

the role and importance of essentialism in biology is still a matter of debate.
— Essentialism

They both seem to be presented as fact and I should maybe add that I honestly don't care which is true. I just want to address such cases because of the annoyance I feel when reading wiki, stumbling on something like this and realising I've learned nothing.

I might as well add I've read WP:VNT and wholeheartedly agree with it but nevertheless think the illustrated case is handled incorrectly. If I am wrong, please correct me. I am a newbie, here to learn. Kuiet (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kuiet: Knowing nothing about the subject, I would say the first example is the more extreme and non-neutral, seeming to say that all scientists think it's obsolete, which is virtually impossible. If there's a significant debate about a subject, it's worth writing about, presenting both sides and references. If one side is really WP:FRINGE-ish, with no history, it could maybe be limited to a footnote in order to keep reasonable balance. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

{@AlanM1: Thank you kindly for your help. I'm having trouble interpreting what 'subject' and 'side' you mention mean in context of the current case. Are you advising I add footnotes to each article with the sentence and reference of the other article? Thank you again for your help and patience. Kuiet (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing a red message on a template

In my article 2020 NRL Nines, there's a red message saying "Expression error: Unexpected ( operator" as it cannot compute the attendance per match. How do I remove the per match part of the category and in doing so, remove the red message? WDM10 (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox tournament is expecting the attendance parameter to be a number; you need to remove the text from that parameter. If you want to mention the attendances for each day separately you'd need to do that in the article prose rather than in the infobox. --David Biddulph (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok thanks. So there's no way to specify it in the infobox? WDM10 (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@WDM10: If it says | noaverage = 1 then the infobox will not attempt to compute an average from attendance and it does not have to be a pure number. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I've fixed it up. WDM10 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

interlanguage image links

Hello,

I'm translating an english article Swift Playgrounds to another language pt:Swift Playgrounds. The images in the english wikipage are not recognized in other languages. Is there a way to reference images from the english wikipedia from wikipages in different languages? Or is it necessary to upload them again?

Thanks, Coel Jo (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Coel Jo, if the image is a free image (both where created and in other countries), usually Wikimedia Commons hosts it. Media from Commons, as the name implies, can be used across different language Wikipedias.

The English Wikipedia allows copyrighted images in its articles, subject to certain rules. One of them is that we must justify its presence in that article specifically, which means you can't reference it in another English language Wikipedia without justification, let alone the Portugese Wikipedia article. See the non-free use rationale in File:App Store icon for Swift Playgrounds.png as an example of documenting such a reason.

Because each language version of Wikipedia has its own rules, I would first consult the Portugese Wikipedia rules on fair use, pt:Ajuda:Conteúdo restrito. Then, I would double-check either at their Village Pump or the article talk page to see if the same images follow their guidelines. Cheers, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 01:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Rotideypoc41352. Much appreciated.Coel Jo (talk) 02:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Questions about quoting sources

I'm reading the Wikipedia guidelines but I'd like to know what is the general opinion regarding frequent quoting of sources that support the statement of a given Wiki page and giving an as complete as possible information about the cited source (pages, dates, quotes, url, isbn, etc.). Is it bad if the majority of the citations in a given Wiki article also contain quotes and their respective pages from the source? Is it generally seen as a citation overkill? Does it violate certain Wikipedia policies? Can someone be banned for opting for full citations with quotes?

You can find general guidance about adding quotations here Wikipedia:Quotations#General_guidelines. I am not quite sure what you mean about a citation 'containing' a quote though? I certainly don't think that a quote should appear every time a citation appears, that would be over-use of quotes, not necessarily citation overkill. Citations should be used frequently and are more or less mandatory, especially for controversial information. Quotes should be used sparingly and are optional, only for when inserting one will improve the article or help the reader's understanding. As for your last question, in theory one can be banned for doing anything disruptive if you do it persisently and after multiple warnings, but I think you would be very unlikely to get banned (or blocked, which is a different thing) for using a few too many quotes, as long as you stop and discuss if anyone objects. Hug^syrup 11:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

About "citations containing a quote", I'm thinking more about the referencing style of an article like this. The references appear to be "full citations", with all the possible information available regarding the cited source itself, the page that supports the statement if possible, and the quote that supports the written statement in an article. Stricnina (talk) 11:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah I see! Sorry, I misunderstood. I haven't seen that style much, but it is perfectly legitimate. See here under 'additional annotation' for some guidance on this. Essentially, it's fine, it can be very useful, it's not mandatory. I wouldn't recommend (not that you were going to, I'm sure!) going around and adding quotes to existing citations all over the place unless there is a good reason for it, but there is certainly no problem with this approach in principle. Does that help? Hug^syrup 11:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for the answer. Yes, this helps. Stricnina (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: One suggested use for quotes is to provide translation to English of a foreign source, which would be useful there, instead of (or in addition to) reproducing the non-English source. I would probably have used the two-step approach, with quotes in the footnotes that in turn reference the sources (to avoid repeating the whole source citation many times). —[AlanM1(talk)]— 15:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and @Hugsyrup, is frequent quoting of sources constitutes WP:COPYVIO or WP:ILCLUTTER? Like in the references section of this page? I don't want to violate Wikipedia policies so I need input. Someone suggested that frequent quoting of the sources like in that case constitute WP:COPYVIO. Stricnina (talk) 07:14, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@AlanM1 and possibly @Hugsyrup Also, I am trying to make a footnote containing a quote, and inside the footnote there is also the reference in "ref name" format but it gives me an error when embedding a citation format inside a footnote. How do I resolve it? Stricnina (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stricnina: This is the approach I was thinking of:

This is some article prose{{Efn|1="Some quoted text from page 3"{{R|Smith-2020|p=3}}}}
and more article prose{{Efn|1="Some quoted text from page 27"{{R|Smith-2020|p=27}}}}
and also article prose.{{Efn|1="The only quote from Jones"<ref name="Jones-2013" />}}

=== Notes ===
{{Notelist}}

=== References ===
{{Reflist |refs=
<ref name="Smith-2020">{{Cite book |last1=Smith |first1=John |title=My life |date=2020 }}</ref>
<ref name="Jones-2013">{{Cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Bob |title=Some title |date=2013 |page=55}}</ref>
}}

It produces the following:

---

This is some article prose and more article prose and also article prose.

References

---

Note that {{R|Smith-2020|p=3}} is a short substitute for <ref name="Smith-2020" />{{Rp|3}}.

(For some reason, I didn't get alerts from the mentions you made with @{{u|AlanM1}}. I suggest using {{Re|AlanM1}} instead.) —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much @AlanM1:! That would really reduce the clutter. Stricnina (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to my bio of the life is rejected will you help me thanks

hello wikipedia. i dont know how to create a page properly i am new here could you please or anyone help me to make or create my page with hard singh rapper name here on wikipedia worldwide. i am rapper, i am gamer also i want to disclose my life bio here so everyone know me from wikipedia. ( i am not here for socialism )

if anyone can help me with this please email me thanks or tell me how to or how can i make my page exposed worldwide like other artist does. thanks help me or i need assistant who can create my page and expose there anything like that thanks help me asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hard Singh Rapper (talk • contribs) 10:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Which part of the replies which you received at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1048#my bio of the life is rejected will you help me thanks, or the links which you were asked to read, don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hard Singh Rapper, most people aren't notable. Unless you have received significant coverage in reliable sources, you are not notable. Please do not try to write an article about yourself; it will be quickly deleted. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 10:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Editor now blocked. David notMD (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Glitch in the revision history system?

On my watchlist I get:

diffhist Jabberwocky‎ [pending revisions] 08:18 +92‎ ‎86.21.217.229 talk‎ →‎Possible interpretations of words

When I go to rhe revision comparison page for this I get the left source page saying that this is the accepted revision and attributing this revision to me, AlainV. But the content of this revision is a series of words that I never wrote: "In the above old image it has four legs and also"

My last revision to the page was really putting in the inline citation to the Muppet Show production with info straight from the talk page.

I am bemused.--AlainV (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi AlainV. Please link pages you refer to. Are you referring to [18]? It shows which changes the IP made, not what you changed. The text "In the above old image it has four legs and also" was in the page after your edit but not after the IP edit. That's all the diff means. It does not imply that you added the text. It had been there for a long time. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to the page you linked to. Also, I just noticed in my watchlist that the text about two pending revisions disappeared. --AlainV (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Locating the move page option

Greetings, I created a new page and I do not see the move page option to make the page public. Can you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah Litz (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Litz, to be able to move articles, you are required to have made more than 10 edits, at which point you are added to the autoconfirmed user group.

We recommend users that don't meet this to submit their drafts to wp:articles for creation, where a reviewer will review the draft then move it. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Sarah Litz. The draft in question is Draft:Erika Hardison. This draft is not yet ready for the encyclopedia for several reasons. There are external links in the body of the article which goes against the content guideline Wikipedia:External links. Some of the language is not written in an encyclopedic style, such as "300 black nerds, or blerds, as they call themselves gathered to celebrate Afrofuturism together". Checking the references, I discovered that is a direct quote from Black Enterprise, but the quote is not in quotation marks and is unattributed. That's a copyright policy violation. Reading further in the Black Enterprise source, I learned that the article was generated by a press release issued by Hardison. That makes this reference worthless for establishing Hardison's notability, because it is not independent of her. A minor point is that you wikilinked "blerds". As a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blerd, that term redirects to nerd, which does not even discuss "blerd", so that link isn't very useful. The Washington Post reference looked promising until I read it and discovered it was only a two sentence quote from Hardison, with no significant coverage of her at all. That's what is called a passing mention and does not establish notability. What you really need are references to reliable, independent sources with no connection to Hardison which devote significant coverage to her as a person. The article content should summarize those sources, and should be written from the neutral point of view with no promotional language. If such sources do not yet exist, then neither should a Wikipedia article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Sarah Litz Even if you were able to move the page yourself to the main encyclopedia, it is advised that you not do so until you have much greater experience in article creation. You should use Articles for Creation as advised regardless. 331dot (talk) 19:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Operation Gamewardens

Resolved

 – 20:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The captioned PBR along the left hand margin of the "Operations" section is mislabeled. It is a Mark II PBR - there are differences in their appearance. And - the machine gun on the back of the boat is a .50 Caliber same as the guns on the forward deck. I know because I served on a PBR in the Delta 1969-70. Thank you for having someone correct these errors.

 Ralph Richason veteran of USN PBR River Division 515  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.142.48 (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC) 

Additionally the forward guns on a PBR are twin .50 caliber - not a single. Thank you.

Ralph Richason — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.142.48 (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Operation Game Warden & File:PBR Mk I.jpg —2606:A000:1126:28D:B5B6:B7C1:7A7:18D0 (talk) 19:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC) ... I'll go ahead and make the corrections since they do correspond to specs listed in the Patrol Boat, River article for MK II PBR

about sources

Hi dear friends. I post info about artist/music producer and gave 5-6 link sources about his works and music but sistem sent me this- Better sources than blogs and social media are needed.Whick sources should be?

https://dancepromo.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/saturday-night-mr-f-presents-mr-p-aka-c-block-here-we-go-2019/ (official site about eurodance music)

https://dancepromo.wordpress.com/2019/06/22/saturday-night-mr-f-presents-mr-p-aka-c-block-here-we-go-2019/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-Block (official page)

https://m.facebook.com/EuroRapMusic/posts/2490797204305208 (T-Music's official page)

https://www.eurodancemag.ga/search/label/here%20we%20go?&max-results=5&m=1 (official site about eurodance music)

https://www.reddit.com/r/eurodance4ever/comments/c290hx/mrf_presents_mrp_aka_cblock_here_we_go_2019/

https://youtube.com/Vv6Rg2dcKrg

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funt Sterling (talk • contribs) 20:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Funt Sterling. An acceptable Wikipedia article should summarize what reliable, independent sources say about the topic, and you should provide properly formatted references to those sources. Other Wikipedia articles are never acceptable as references. The vast majority of blogs are not acceptable. A Facebook page is not acceptable for establishing notability. A website called "Dancepromo" is obviously promotional and not a reliable source. Reddit is user edited and is not a reliable source for establishing notability. Random YouTube videos do not establish notability. Acceptable sources have professional editorial control and a reputation for accuracy and correcting errors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Funt Sterling: I’m afraid none of those are suitable. A wordpress blog is self-published and therefore not reliable. Reddit and YouTube are social media, also not reliable sources. And of course Wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source. ‘Eurodance mag’ might be an ok source, although I question its editorial standards, but the link you have provided seems to be a search results list and not an article page. Please read WP:RS for more guidance on what constitutes a reliable source. Hugsyrup 20:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this topic notable enough for an article?

Could I write an article about the decrease of the usage of public transportation in london? I have some reliable sources and the topic seems notable. Can I or should I write about it? Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, I've had a brief look at what sources are available, and it does seem to be notable enough for an article here. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 12:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I'll get started soon. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Do remember, Rodrigo Valequez, that your article should summarise what the sources say. It should not contain any opinions, arguments, or conclusions that are not taken from one of your sources - not even a conclusion from combining two sources. That would be original research. --ColinFine (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• @ColinFine:Could I include the conclusions of the people that have written the articles. Could I write the possible reasons which are mentioned in reliable sources? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Rodrigo Valequez, you can certainly say things like "John Smith argues/suggests/concludes that .... .(reference). Mary Jones argues that ... (reference)". But even if these directly contradict each other, you must not try to resolve the question or draw a conclusion (unless you can show that Smith's view is a minority and most sources agree with Jones, in which case you should indicate the different weights given to the views). It's also best to avoid editorialising words and phrases like "however" or "on the other hand". --ColinFine (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback, I'll get started as soon as possible (a few days later, I'm extremely busy these days.). Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

I have a question. If all my sources are in one website, could I just use the website as a source and put that as a link or would I have to give separate links? Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, you can reuse references multiple times in the same article - see WP:REFNAME. However, if it is different pages on the same website they need to all be done individually. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 14:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)l

• Oh no, does that mean I have to add 24 sources linking to Ankara, Çubuk's cencus data. I thought I could put a link to the Turkish Statistical Institude and be done with it. Well, guess I'll have to do it sometime. Regards Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rodrigo Valequez: That's actually one of the prime examples of why it's necessary. I've routinely been frustrated by trying to verify a statistic sourced to just a census data main page. Unless you are very familiar with the topic, and the particular country's data, and their particular website's way of presenting it, it's near impossible to find one particular data point in any reasonable amount of time. You can use {{Rp}} (or even easier, {{R}}) to avoid repeating the full citation if only the page number is different (e.g., if, as is sometimes the case, multiple tables are combined into one PDF document). I hope this helps, and thanks for the question. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

mention MIT text-generating tool in wp?

• Automated system can rewrite outdated sentences in Wikipedia articles; Text-generating tool pinpoints and replaces specific information in sentences while retaining humanlike grammar and style. news.mit.edu by Rob Matheson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology News Office, February 12, 2020

Stumbled across the above, article seems to belong in wp, somewhere. X1\ (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

X1\, see Wikipedia:Press coverage 2020. If you like, you can post a "hey look at this" at Jimbos talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Where's "Jimbo's talkpage"? 2606:A000:1126:28D:B5B6:B7C1:7A7:18D0 (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

User talk:Jimbo Wales. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done -- I took the liberty, although I'm not the original poster -- hope that's okay. 2606:A000:1126:28D:B5B6:B7C1:7A7:18D0 (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How to make Archive on my Talk Page?

Hi Everyone,

Can anyone help me to setup an 'Archive" on my Talk Page? I want to make it separate Year wise. I have tried to add but failed. DMySon 12:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

DMySon, you need a way to archive it, typically a bot is used. I personally use User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis.

You can add this to your talk page, and the bot will do the archiving for you.

I personally have it set up like {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:OxonAlex/Archives/ |format=%%i |archivebox=yes |archivenow={{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} |maxarchsize=140700 |age=145 }}

Which archives discussions that haven't been edited in 6 days (145 hours), into numbered suppages of User talk:OxonAlex/Archives/. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There are other ways, and you don't have to use a bot, but this has the advantage that it can be set and forgotten with no input from the user. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 13:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My Dear friend User:Alex Noble, Thank you for very well explaining.DMySon 05:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done, currently archives older than 10 days (240 hours), but you can increase that number by changing the "age" parameter (counted in hours). – Thjarkur (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My Dear friend User:Þjarkur, Thank you for doing this for me.DMySon 05:34, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

fix unclear citation style warning

Hi, I am working on a page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_J._Black and have an unclear citation style warning and that "...{{citation style..." has been added to the page. I have looked through the page, and all citations are the same (format) all using "...{{Cite web|..." ... I'm not sure what I'm missing :) Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IntoTheFuture1402 (talk • contribs)

@IntoTheFuture1402: the tag was added by Atlantic306 so it might be better to approach them for clarification. However, I note that none of the cites contain any information beyond a URL and a title, and this in itself is somewhat unclear, particularly because in some cases it makes it unclear whether it is the webpage that is being cited, or the academic thesis detailed on the webpage. The first cite is a good example of that - I am going to work on the assumption that it is the academic thesis that is being cited, and I have therefore changed the cite template from 'web' to 'journal' and introduced the additional fields available from that link. This is, you will see, now much clearer. The same needs to be done to the other cites. Hug^syrup 09:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

About a new Wikipedia editor copy-and-pasting same content to different articles

I don't know anything if it is legitimate or not, but I'm just concerned about a certain editor copy-pasting the same (or almost the same) contribution to different Wikipedia articles. Examples:

• Religious views on same-sex marriage;
• Homosexuality and religion
• Women and religion;
• Ethics in religion;
• Folk religion;
• Indigenous religious beliefs of the Philippines;
• Religion in pre-colonial Philippines;
• Religion in the Philippines;

Should this be reported or not? Stricnina (talk) 11:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that User:HKongbott has created referenced content about the Anitist religion in the above articles. David notMD (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

So, is that really an issue or not? References are just copy-pasted (including the reference names, thus giving errors), and when read, may not even align with what exactly the sources say. The sources in ethics of anitism for example might not even have the keyword "ethics" at all. Stricnina (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I meant to add that the issues here are that User:HKongbott has created referenced content about the Anitism religion/cultural practices in the above (and other) articles. This raises two possible issues: 1) if Hkongbott copied content written by others in one article and pasted it into other articles, should have included an attribution in Edit summary, but not required if content created by Hkongbott; 2) this may be more content than is appropriate in the listed articles, especially if articles are not about the Philippines where Anitism is/was prevalent; and 3) if there are errors in added content those will need to be corrected in multiple articles. David notMD (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

HKongbott since identified as sockpuppet, so blanket revert of contributions. Possible that some of the content about Anitism was valid, and appropriate for article about religion in Philippines, but that will have to come from someone else. David notMD (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Feels like this recipe is not okay?

The Wikimedia/Wikibooks Cookbook seems like a potentially invaluable resource, but there's at least one recipe in there that is maybe not okay: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Placenta_with_Broccoli

I don't claim to know whether or not cooking and eating placenta is culturally okay somehere in the world, but to me this feels like it was written as a joke?

“This is a tasty dish that the whole family will love.”

“You'll need about 1/2 the placenta of a 6.2 pound baby, or 1/3 the placenta of a 9.3 pound baby.”

I mean... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B126:AA2C:B8C1:DE23:854:862F (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, IP editor. The Teahouse provides information only about editing the English Wikipedia. You will have to take your concerns to the Wikibooks project. We cannot help you here. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) The correct place to ask would be either that article's talk page or maybe wikibooks:WB:HELP. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Not the refdesk, but: Human placentophagy. If you're gonna eat it, you might as well cook it well... Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

vintage View Master gift pack

I have a View Master gift pack (probably from the late 1950s) in good condition in original box. Included are 9 reels. I was wondering the value of it. I can't find anything exactly like it on the internet. Would this be something you would be interested in purchasing, or could you tell me what I should ask.

Thank you.

Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.81.0.136 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Carol, I think you may be confused about the purpose of Wikipedia. It is not a website for buying and selling items, nor for assessing the value of something. You could always try selling it on eBay. Hug^syrup 13:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How to notify Wikipedia of important missing content

Hi, i am the founder of www.marinadelray.co ( not marina del rey which is in California) the Marina is the first Port of entry into Indonesia that has a western standard marina. It is a vital piece of Infrastructure for Yachts traveling around the world and crossing the between the Pacific and Indian Ocean.

it is the first time in Indonesia that the country has opened up its sovereignty to allow the expansion of its emerging Maritime economy.

Before now Indonesia had no Marinas.

i want to know of someone would write a independent report on the business please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaymondLaFontaine (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@RaymondLaFontaine: Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. See WP:NOTPROMO. shoy (reactions) 14:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

review process and time frame

I have contributed in creating two pages: Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection Theory (IPARTheory) and International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection. However, they are still not reviewed. It has been since November 2019 that no one reviewed to be approved. Can anyone help me find out how long does it take to get it reviewed after publishing and before it goes live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ali.shaila: I assume that for 'Interpersonal Acceptance-Rejection Theory' you are referring to User:Ali.shaila/sandbox? And the other page is International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection. So, the second one (International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection) is already in the mainspace so is already 'live'. It hasn't yet been reviewed, but that is a final step that you don't really need to worry about. It's difficult to review because so many of the sources are offline, so that may have something to do with it.

As for User:Ali.shaila/sandbox, this hasn't yet been submitted for review, so you would need to do that first. You can do so by pasting {{subst:submit}} at the top. Articles For Creation reviews can take several weeks, and this one is likely to take some time as it includes 37 sources, all of which are offline, so most reviewers will find this a challenge to review unfortunately. I would also say that it reads more like an academic paper than an encyclopedia article - so this might need work if it is to be accepted. Hug^syrup 15:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, For a prompt reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali.shaila (talk • contribs) 15:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing a protected page.

Hello,

I am hoping that someone can assist me. I would like to know how to edit a factual error, that is located on a "protected" page.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. I appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GarboLaughs (talk • contribs) 14:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@GarboLaughs: you can post on the talk page of the article and request an edit. Or if you explain here what the error is, someone here might be happy to help. Hug^syrup 15:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, GarboLaughs, and welcome to the Teahouse! Unfortunately, you can't edit a protected article now, but if you find factual error, you can leave a edit request on the talk page of that article. So make sure you have a source to support the claim though. I can help you now if you can tell me the name of the article? (Please do sign your posts) Thanks, Puddleglum ^2.0 16:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

pepper spray reference 20 is clear ads leading to Fox lab shop

But when i edit and give a genuine link to a content why it's called ads and removed ? Please don't be biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenrights.in (talk • contribs) 11:14, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Lets clarify. Yes you removed something... BUT... you also added material that was a direct copy from an external website. That is a copyright violation and will/must be removed on sight. - X201 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This is what you changed now and telling a new story. biased people must be bribed to keep 20 reference in pepper spray — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenrights.in (talk • contribs) 11:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

In your attempt to correct a wrong you committed a second wrong (copyright infringement). David notMD (talk) 12:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, Womenrights.in - you have not uncovered a cabal of corrupt editors taking bribes to keep advertising for an alternative brand of pepper spray on Wikipedia. I agree with your assessment that the link to the Fox lab online shop was inappropriate, and I have removed it. Please remember that two wrongs do not make a right - the correct response to discovering covert advertisement on Wikipedia is to remove it, not to add advertisements for a competitor (especially not when it's done in breach of copyright policy). GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

good job thanks a lot.. we all need to be on equal plane — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenrights.in (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Just completed revision--unsure about see also, external links & botanical matters

Hello all:

I just published a fairly substantial revision to the article about Judge Addison Brown. I attempted to retain the See Also, External Links, etc., as well as botanical references but feel someone more knowledgeable might find errors, particularly in these areas.

Thanks--Riverbend Trail (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Riverbend Trail: I don't see any clear issues with your edits (although I haven't checked through them line-by-line). We have a policy here called 'bold, revert, discuss' which essentially means that you are free to 'boldly' make edits (as long as you do so with care and good faith) and if anyone has a problem, they will revert them. So, if no one reverts your edits, you can presume they are probably ok, and you don't need to check in here! That said, one tip I would give you is not to make such a large edit in one go. This is for a couple of reasons: firstly, if one small part of the edit is problematic, you might find that someone undoes the whole thing which would be a shame. Secondly, if your browser crashes or something, while you are writing, all you work could be lost. Whereas if you publish regularly, it is effectively saved. Finally, you should write an edit summary for each edit, and it is easier to explain your changes if each one is fairly small - that makes it clearer to someone watching the article what you have changed and why. Just a tip for the future though - I see no problem with what you've done. Hug^syrup 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Your contributions seem to me excellent – indeed, so much so that I didn't read to the end, as there appeared to be nothing I might question, apart from the apparent inconsistency between "donated the initial $25,000" and "single largest charitable bequest ... worth $21,750". Maproom (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you both, @Hugsyrup: and @Maproom:. In the future I will edit in smaller sections and I did attempt to clarify Judge Brown's 1891 $25K donation vs. $21.75K bequest after his death. Appreciate your advice! Riverbend Trail (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

I edited the Wikipedia page for 13 (number) so that one of the subsections that lists the properties of 13 reads:

"a lucky number (ironically)."

Is this allowed, or too unprofessional/not Wikipedia-like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F390:2A00:C6F:1C75:1BCF:7104 (talk) 21:04, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No. This comes under the heading of editorializing, i.e. it is leading the user to think a certain way about the subject. --ColinFine (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

What's in IP user?

I was following some edits and this came up under User contributions:

"This is the contributions page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users."

So, I'm curious.

Thanks Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Maryanne Cunningham: It refers to a user who has not registered an account, and so is identified only by their IP address. RudolfRed (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks RudolfRed. What difference does that make (if it makes any)? Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Maryanne Cunningham. In theory, it makes very little difference: there are a few things that you can do only after you have created an account and made a certain number of edits. But it is harder for other editors to communicate with them, because they don't have their own User Talk pages. IP addresses can have user talk pages, but, as it says in the message you quoted, a particular user's IP address may change and then they will no longer see communications on their old User Talk page unless they go looking for them. In practice, some editors treat an IP user's work less seriously than that of a logged in user: this isn't supposed to happen, but sometimes it does. See WP:ACCOUNT for further information. --ColinFine (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ColinFine Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How to define and update counters?

Hi. I'm wondering how to define a 'number counter'. For example, there is currently a counter for the number of launches by SpaceX's Falcon 9 Full Thrust rocket; the call is given by double curly parantheses around the statement Falcon rocket statistics|F9FTlaunch and it currently gives the following result: 303. How and where is this counter defined and how is it updated?

Thanks, and cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotty's Friend (talk • contribs) 21:01, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The double curly brackets tell you that it's a template, so it's Template:Falcon rocket statistics. --David Biddulph (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks David Biddulph! -- Spotty's Friend —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I HATE User:Sinebot

IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN STOP THIS BOT FROM SIGNING MY POSTS ON TALK PAGES AS IT IS GETTING ANNOYING AND I DO NOT NEED SECOND HAND REMINDERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Dinah (talk • contribs) 10:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Dinah: Yes there is - simply sign your own posts by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your post. Signing posts is a courtesy to other users so that they know who is speaking, and when the post was made, and it is a requirement for collegiate editing on Wikipedia. If you do not do so, SineBot will continue to do it for you. Hug^syrup 10:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

For the record, there are opt-out instructions as well. But I agree, simply signing your posts is a lot easier. Primefac (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to sign all the time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Dinah (talk • contribs) 10:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Dinah: You really do. It is very difficult to read a conversation on one of these pages if there is no indication of who typed what (and when). Signing also provides a useful link to your user page and talk page, which other editors find convenient. As I say, it is a well-establish custom on Wikipedia and a courtesy to other users, and it takes no time at all to type four tildes or click the button at the bottom of the edit window to insert them in one click, so it would be nice if you could do so. Hug^syrup 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Hugsyrup and Scott Dinah. And, something that they haven't pointed out — if you contribute to discussions without adding a signature, and after arranging that Sinebot doesn't do it for you, people will wonder where these unattributed messages are coming from and assume that the person responsible has something to hide. Maproom (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Maproom: I don't think you meant to say you agreed with the OP (now blocked as a sock of some other disrupter), did you? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Right. I miscopied the OP's name instead of Primefac's. Maproom (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

External link removed

Hi everybody,

I am adding an external link to an article related to dialectic methodology. I do not think I am violating any rule regarding copyright as the article is written by me mainly by reading Hegel's writings including Science of Logic and Phenomenology of Spirit (Mind).

My article's are free to be published but in Wikipedia I am only adding an external link.

Is there any specific and concrete reason why the link has been removed?

Thanks, Madjid Madjidsalehi (talk) 05:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: Dialectic. Pinging Billinghurst, who removed the link. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 05:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Madjidsalehi. Links to external websites can be added to the "External links" section of article if they qualify per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE and are not the types of links listed under WP:ELNO. The link you added to Dialectic was removed by an editor named Billinghurst with this edit. Billinghurst left a edit summary stating "rm link spam" which means that he felt the link was WP:SPAM and not suitable for adding to the article. Another possible reason the link was removed may have to do with WP:NONENGEL in that external links to non-English websites are sometimes allowed but not always depending upon the specifics of the link. Anyway, if you disagree with Billinghurst's assessment or want further clarification, you start a discussion about the link at Talk:Dialectic and explain why how the link meets WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Perhaps you will be able to clarify things enough to convince others that the link is OK to re-add to the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Madjidsalehi: Please read reliable sources and conflict of interest. If you feel the article is lacking information then please add that information and cite it, with the citation being to Hegel's writings, rather than yours. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up to Which language is old Hindi or Urdu

Which language is oldest Hindi or Urdu, I want to prove that Hindustani is an hindi Dialect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fogstar (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Fogstar Please ask at the Language Reference Desk. The Teahouse is for asking how to edit Wikipedia, we do not handle content questions here. Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fogstar: We are an encyclopaedia that reflects the sum of knowledge and existing scholarly, we are not researchers trying to prove a point nor undertake our own research. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

remove hyperlink for ambiguous name listed as child

the son of person has name close to the parent. wikipedia creates an automatic link from the son's name (listed under "children") to the son's grandfather's article (an established wikipedia article).

how _remove_ the link, so the son is listed, but not with an incorrect hyperlink? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsnyder40 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wsnyder40: are you referring to Giorgi Shengelaia? It’s always easier if you’re specific about the article rather than leaving us to guess... So, currently Nikoloz Shengelaya is a redirect to Nikoloz Shengelaia, which seems logical for the time being. If the son is notable in his own right then you can go to the redirect page, remove the redirect, and turn it into a new article. However, he probably isn’t notable enough so I do not recommend that. Instead, why not simply remove the square brackets around the son’s name in the info box and leave it in black text? There is no particular benefit to having a red link (I.e a link to a non-existent page) for all of the children. Hug^syrup 22:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup, thank you! I found an external link to disambiguate the son (from the son's grandfather), and appreciate your bonus recommendations: have taken out brackets so no red ink (wondered where it came from...), and yes, the entry edits are about Georgian filmmaker Giorgi Shengelaia (who just died)...good idea to include when asking a question (wasn't sure). So quick and on target--thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsnyder40 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

A section has a link to a much more detailed main page, what detail should it have?

There's a section in the Merlin page called: Modern Fiction, and here it is:

Modern fiction

Main article: Fiction featuring Merlin

"The subject of Merlin has continued to be popular through the Renaissance and afterwards, especially since the renewed interest in the legend of Arthur in modern times. According to Arthurian scholar Alan Lupack, "numerous novels, poems and plays center around Merlin. (I've removed the citation for clarity) In American literature and popular culture, Merlin is perhaps the most frequently portrayed Arthurian character." Sometimes Merlin is a villain, such as in Mark Twain's satire of the legend, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court (1889).

One entry, and a redirect to another page.

I'm wondering if that section should be in there at all, given there's a main article on the topic (of fiction involving Merlin). And if it should be there, it certainly needs more than a single reference to a (no longer very modern) writer. How much detail is expected of a section like this?

Grateful for thoughts from experienced editors, thanks! Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This section is good for a lead-in into the subject of modern fiction featuring Merlin; otherwise people who want to know about Merlin in media would have to search for articles with keywords like "Merlin," "fiction," and/or "media" to hopefully find an article on the topic as opposed to clicking on a given link, saving time. I think that one or two more examples would be nice. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 22:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again Tenryuu. (So much to learn...) Maryanne Cunningham (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@Maryanne Cunningham: No worries. If you want to ping someone you can choose between {{User}}, {{Ping}}, or {{Re}} (click on the links for more info). --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 01:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I need a little help to get my defunct software page to be accepted

My youtube downloader page sandbox got rejected, but honestly I understand my sandboxes do kinda suck now because im not so experienced. but plz help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaredmBrooks (talk • contribs) 03:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@JaredmBrooks: Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your submission is nowhere close to be accepted as a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia articles are based on sources that are reliable, independent, and discuss the topic in detail. I hope this helps a little bit. Interstellarity (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Citations

What is citation and how do you use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noreenkhan988 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Noreenkhan988: The short answer is: a citation is a reference from a source for article content. Wikipedia asks that they be reliable published sources. More information can be found at WP:RS and WP:Citing sources. Basically, use these to support writing the article. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 06:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this paraphrased enough?

Is this paraphrased enough?: The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan found that girls were actually kidnapped and married to Muslim men against their wishes or sold to them and these girls had not run away with them. Some girls from affluent Hindu families, run away with their Muslim boyfriends, but such marriages are short lived. The family links are severed and these females are then co-erced to marry some other Muslim man or are exploited by marriage agents.

According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, a cleric accused of forced conversions, many Hindu girls are abducted and kept as sex slaves, but they are not converted.

Most of these females have either lost their husbands or are extremely poor. According to Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi, the government is supposed to look after all Hindus and others, but they approach him when they do not get government help.—Spasiba5 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Page publishing

I want to know about how can I do a better edit and how I publish a page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZZ Digital Solution (talk • contribs) 12:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@ZZ Digital Solution: the best thing is to read WP:YFA which provides guidance on creating your first article. However, before you do that - your username suggests that you are an organisation and this implies that more than one person might be using your account, which is against Wikipedia's policies. You will need to change your username or you risk being blocked. In addition, what exactly is ZZ Digital Solutions? Are you here to edit/create articles on behalf of clients? If so, it is essential that you read WP:PAID and put the necessary disclosure on your userpage for every client that you are editing on behalf of. Hug^syrup 12:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

edit a page name

so ive created a page, but the name of the page is spelt wrong, can I amend it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.61.92.11 (talk) 13:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

You should be able to move it to the appropriate page title you want. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 13:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Your IP address has not created any pages. Logged in users can only move pages if they are autoconfirmed. Which page is it? PrimeHunter (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Are sources from WMF suitable sources for an article on a WMF-created library (OOUI/OOJS-UI)?

I am working on an article in my sandbox on WMF's OOUI-JS library. The only good sources I can find are from WMF sources. Do I need to wait for 3-rd party sources to appear? Also, is this topic notable enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirobbins (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Nirobbins, and welcome to the Teahouse. Yes, you need third-party sources in order to establish notability. You can certainly cite WMF sources to corroborate uncontroversial factual information in the article, but most of the sources should be independent, and if they don't exist, then the subject is not notable. --ColinFine (talk) 15:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Citing a source's source

I've seen how to do this somewhere, but I can't remember how!

I want to cite this webpage: http://thepeerage.com/p41917.htm#i419169 . That's easy enough with the cite web template, but the problem is that thepeerage.com isn't really a reliable source in itself. The reliable source is the one it cites - Burkes Peerage 2003 (which I can't check directly). So I need a way to cite "Burkes Peerage as used in thepeerage.com" or "thepeerage.com citing Burkes Peerage." I've seen this done in the past, I've done it myself, but I'm having a brain fade today.

By the way, thepeerage.com, reliable or not, is quite widely used in Wikipedia. It'd be great if someone could come up with a template for it that manages this double citation problem. Chuntuk (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Duh, of course I found it myself as soon as I'd posted here. See WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for how to do this. You can see what I've done for William Unwin Heygate. My suggestion about a template stands though. Chuntuk (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Chuntuk: when using citation templates, you can sometimes use |via= to include details that don't belong in |work= or |publisher=. However, if the situation is complex, it's sometimes easier to avoid templates altogether. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What I did, all in the same ref, was to use two cite templates: "{cite book Burkes Peerage} cited in {cite web thepeerage.com}" (obviously using all the relevant parameters in each template). This fits the WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT instructions better than using the via parameter, I think. Chuntuk (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Natasha Moraga

Can only the person who put a tag on an article take it off? This article was tagged and I made corrections. (I am not the subject or connected to the subject). I asked the reviewer to check my changes but I havent gotten any response. Thank you --HicksW (talk) 10:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

HicksW, anyone can remove a tag, but since you wrote the article it might be better for an uninvolved person to review it. It was placed there by QuiteUnusual - they might be willing to give it another read through. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

HicksW It is phrases like this that led me to tag it originally: "She was a very rebellious teenager and at age 15, moved out and still believes it was the right thing to do at the time. There were family problems and she needed time and space to find her own way." This just isn't normal encyclopedic style; it's more like what you'd find in a gossip magazine article or an autobiography. I'm not the final arbiter on this, but I think there's still a long way to go before the article is in the right form. At least one other editor agrees as someone else has add the {{tone}} tag. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual: I'll agree that is not encyclopedic, but it is based on the cited sources. I'd be OK with a removal of the autobio tag. I did some copyediting while fixing other stuff, but I'm not feeling particularly eloquent at the moment, so it could still use some work. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 14:30, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's leave it with just tone then - makes sense to me. QuiteUnusual (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Can anyone help me with "wikifying" this table?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Almaty/sandbox

Hello! I haven't asked here for help in a very long time, but I also surprised myself on how I managed to use the bar graph wiki code to make a table that I'm interested in. It is in use in a high volume page.

I know that others make templates and others use external programs or websites, but due to the daily updated nature of the graph I'd like to keep it "easily" editable and updatable. But also - like right aligned, in a box, like we're meant to and others seem to be able to do quite easily... Can anyone teach me how to do this? Cos if tis not that hard I may make more for new subpages or the like down the line. Thankyou! --Almaty (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

​Does this work? The image frame can be made with {{image frame}}. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much! --Almaty (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

are you by any chance able to put the text on the y axis on a angle? Cos then can fit more in as the dates progress. You’re a star thank you! —Almaty (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

​I'm not sure if that's possible, at least it's not mentioned in the guide. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Referencing question.

I am trying to add a reference on the Supertramp page where it says "citation needed". It is after this statement: "Most of the band have said they feel they hit their artistic peak on this album". I have found an interview where the band's drummer says this but it is in a youtube video and my question is, is it okay to reference a youtube video? Ibrahim Moizooos (talk) 14:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ibrahim Moizooos. Thanks for wanting to help. There are two issues here. First, yes, we can reference certain YouTube videos. If this is on the band's own channel, or on a reputable news-source, you can cite it; but if it has been posted by a random person, then it is probably a copyright violation, and we never link to those. If it looks official, then you can cite it using {{cite Youtube}}.

Secondly, a source showing the drummer saying that is a primary source. It could be used to support a statement like "Drummer XXX said in an interview that he felt they had hit their artistic peak on this album". It cannot be used to support any statement that "most of the band have said xxx". That would require a link to an independent source that talked about "most of the band" or similar words. --ColinFine (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help!

Ibrahim Moizooos (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Entering COI information, how to

I recently submitted a draft article and need to disclose my COI information for judging by Wikipedia. How do I do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squibking (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Squibking: welcome to Wikipedia, and thanks for disclosing you have a conflict. See WP:COI for how to disclose this. RudolfRed (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Do I need a full cast with the characters each actor plays for each episode of a show?

A full cast includes all of the listed people in the credits. Thanks, Thatoneweirdwikier Say hi 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Thatoneweirdwikier: Wikipedia is supposed to be a general overview, not a reference guide for completists. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television has some useful guidelines on what to include. WP:TVCAST, for example, cautions that "not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing link to name on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_South_Wales_Bar_Association

Hi there,

does anyone know how to remove a link to the name Jane Needham on the following link:

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

It links to an 19th Century woman and not the correct Jane Needham SC.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.178.144 (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done - X201 (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My Submission Rejected because of "Plagiarism"

Hello,

I recently submitted a post about Rushan Abbas, the Executive Director of Campaign for Uyghurs (and NGO based in DC). As per her request, I was to create a wikipedia page for both her and her NGO. However, the submission I made was rejected due to "plagiarism." However, I used the information she already has submitted on her website (as per her request) and am allowed to copy it from there. How can I submit the article now?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daradavigne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daradavigne (talk • contribs) 22:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Daradavigne: If it is on the other website, then you cannot put it into Wikipedia, unless it is licensed to be copied by anyone for any purpose. See WP:DCM for how to licence the text this way. RudolfRed (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Also please read WP:COI and see if it applies to you. - X201 (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Daradavigne. I'm afraid that, like many people, you have a misunderstanding about what Wikipedia is. It is not a vehicle for promotion (and Wikipedia uses that word to mean not just commercial promotion, but also promoting anything else, including worthy causes). If Wikipedia has an article about Abbas, it will not be Abbas's article, in will not belong to her, she and her associates will have no control over the contents, and almost none of the content should come directly from her: it should be almost wholly based on what people who have no connection with her have chosen to publish about her in reliable places. As an associate, you are discouraged from directly creating or editing an article about her (see the link X201 gave you).

As for the copyright material: Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and has the mission of creating an encyclopaedia which people are free to reuse. This means that we do not accept any copyright material unless the copyright owner has explicitly released it under a licence which will allow anybody to reuse it for any purpose. But even if the copyright question is sorted, it is unlikely that much material from her website would be acceptable, because it will not be neutral or encyclopaedic in tone. --ColinFine (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Please can i have some tea?

English breakfast, 2 sugars and milk please :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AddisonJudah (talk • contribs) 22:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure, here you go

Chuntuk (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, have some

Coding correction needed

On the page Wikipedia:Book sources#Subscription eBook databases, the entry for Project MUSE, which I put there myself, does not work because I don't know how to code it properly. The problem is that the link does not transmit the isbn properly to Project MUSE so it can reply whether it has the book or not; it just goes to an input page. I'd appreciate it if someone who knows how would fix it. Thank you. deisenbe (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi deisenbe. Wikipedia:Book sources requires that a site can search by ISBN in a url. Can Project MUSE do that? If it can then please show an example url which does it. For example, they have a page https://muse.jhu.edu/book/14122 about a book with ISBN 9780826351616. How do you find it from the ISBN? Google can do it with 9780826351616 site:https://muse.jhu.edu but we want the site itself to make the search. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm inquiring. deisenbe (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: There is no mention of ISBN at https://muse.jhu.edu/search, https://about.muse.jhu.edu/resources/search-help/ or anywhere else I looked, and none of my search attempts gave any results. I guess they cannot do it and should be removed from Wikipedia:Book sources. You could try asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing or https://about.muse.jhu.edu/about/contact/ if you really want to keep them. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

What you're saying I know. There is a different url for for submitting technical queries, which I've used. (https://about.muse.jhu.edu/resources/technical-help/) deisenbe (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: They only display the unhyphenated ISBN on book pages but if I search a hyphenated version then there are sometimes results. I have implemented code to keep hyphenation if it was used in the link to book sources.[19] Per Wikipedia talk:Book sources#Search hyphenated ISBN in "Find articles on Wikipedia" it appears complicated to add hyphens in the right places if they aren't already there. ISBN 9780826351616 still doesn't work but ISBN 978-0-8263-5161-6 does work now. I found the hyphens at an external site by Googling the unhyphenated ISBN. If you are in contact with them then maybe suggest they accept unhyphenated ISBN in searches like everybody else. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why don't you take this over and contact them, that would be more efficient. No reason it should go through me. deisenbe (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I have never used the site before your post but If you hear back from them then I would like their reply and can maybe try on my own. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

COI editing

Hello,

I am a new editor working on an article for a restaurant, Aska, of which I am affiliated.

I appreciate that Wikipedia discourages editing articles by users with a conflict of interest. My intention is not to use wikipedia for promotional purposes. Rather, I believe that there is genuine public interest in Aska. This list, for instance, links to the article I am editing.

To be clear, I have not received payment in exchange for creating or editing this article. This is a personal endeavour. I wish to adhere to all best practices for editing an article with a COI. I have thus identified myself as a connected contributor on the article's talk page.

I am hoping for guidance specifically on how to remove the warning about possible undisclosed payments. I would appreciate any guidance on editing with a conflict of interest generally too. Are there other steps I can take to make my conflict of interest transparent?

Thank you very much for your help. --ElliotMacy (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What is nature of "of which I am affiliated."? Are you employed by the restaurant? Owner? Those would qualify as paid, even if not being paid to create/eit the article. David notMD (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ElliotMacy. You wrote the draft article and submitted it through the Articles for Creation process, where it was accepted by a highly respected editor. You have declared a conflict of interest. All of that is very good and I commend you for your disclosure.

The restaurant (which has two Michelin stars) is indisputably notable and ought to have an article. It was tagged for possible undisclosed paid editing on December 11 of last year, and you did not make your formal COI declaration on your user page until recent hours. So, the tagging was correct.

Getting to the heart of the matter, you say that you are "affiliated" with the restaurant but then deny that you are a paid editor. That raises the question of the precise nature of your affiliation which creates a conflict of interest but (by your account) does not constitute paid editing. I encourage you to clarify your affiliation. If you are not comfortable providing details in public, you could email an administrator (I am one). If I am convinced that you are not a paid editor, I will remove the tag. Otherwise, you will need to make a more complete disclosure here on Wikipedia.

Going forward, you should not edit the article directly, except to revert obvious vandalism. Instead, use the procedure described at Wikipedia:Edit requests to suggest improvements to the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

ElliotMacy, a person who says they are "Elliot Macy" identified himself as the owner of Aska in a public Yelp discussion. If you are the same person, then you are a paid editor by Wikipedia's standards. If so, it is best for you to be honest about it now. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi ElliotMacy. Just to add to what Cullen328 posted above, Wikipedia is in the WP:REALWORLD which means everything you post on Wikipedia is going to be there for everyone to see. Editors are allowed to use their real names as their user names per WP:REALNAME, but many choose not to out of privacy concerns. If you're really the owner of the restaurant and your real name is Elliot Macy, then someone who really wants to will be able to see that you're editing the Wikipedia article about your restaurant, and may try such information against you in some way. On the other hand, if you're not the same Elliot Macy and you're real name isn't Elliot Macy, that someone might try to use your edits in some way against him. Please note that I'm not suggesting that any conflict of interest or paid editing issues related to your Wikipedia editing are going to disappear if you change your user name; they actually won't because those things apply to the person actually making the edits, regardless of their user name. I'm just pointing this out in case you for some reason you thought that your contributions to Wikipedia are somehow not visible to the outside world. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about CL Qualification

Hi I on my sandbox I have made a Positions by round table for the 2019–20 Premier League. but Man City have just been banned from all European competitions until 2022 by UEFA how do I add that into it? I can't move the Champions League qualification section from 2-4 to 3-5 because Man city have been as low as 4th this season any help? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: User:Sandbox:PoR 2018–19 and User:Sandbox:PoR 2019-20 were misnamed and deleted. Your user subpages should start with "User:REDMAN 2019/". Would you like the latter or both pages restored in your userspace? The pages used Module:sports rbr table which does not have a feature for what you want. You could request it at Module talk:Sports rbr table but I don't know whether it would be done for such rare cases. You may just have to add a footnote about it, similar to Template:2019–20 Premier League table. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks yes please I would like them to be restored. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I have restored them and moved them to User:REDMAN 2019/PoR 2018–19 and User:REDMAN 2019/PoR 2019-20 without leaving redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: I made an ugly hack with nowiki [20] which currently works to avoid coloring. I don't promise it will always work. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Again thank you for all your help. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Can anybody help me with finding a source?

I'm currently creating the article Kang Myung-A, it's about a south korean sports shooter. The article is currently in my sandbox. I can't find the sports reference for olympics. I've looked and can't find anything that usefull. If anybody can help, thanks Neverbuffed (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Neverbuffed: maybe try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea for sources in Korean?

Also, I assume you wrote in User:Neverbuffed/sandbox but could not find easily the version you are talking about in the page history. In case you did not know, you can create named drafts such as User:Neverbuffed/Kang Myung-A or Draft:Kang Myung-A (see Help:Userspace draft and Wikipedia:Drafts); it is easier to move them to mainspace while keeping the history of edits, though not mandatory of course. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

we created a page but its still in pending!! [HELP]

can any one review my page to see eveerything is correct Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstshow28 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If this is about User:Firstshow28/sandbox, the referencing is really weird, and it will almost certainly be rejected if it is reviewed. A reference should follow the statement which it supports. Instead, the references in that sandbox are randomly strewn through the plot summary, one of them inside the name of a character. And there are no references for any of the statements about the film itself. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what Maproom points out, the sandbox draft you created is about the same film as the existing draft Draft:Mathu Vadalara, which is waiting for review (unlike your sandbox, which you have not submitted for review). That draft is more neutrally written – your sandbox draft contains phrases like "massive success at the box office" which is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article – but it could use a couple more references. Keeping Maproom's comments in mind, you might try to add some references to the draft. As for when the review of the draft will take place, there is no way of telling. (The plot synopsis there will also need to be replaced with an actual synopsis, or else removed completely – at the moment, the last sentence reads "They witness something sinister and the story takes a darker and unimaginable turn." which is no help at all to our readers! The same thing applies to the plot summary in your sandbox draft. The plot summary should tell the reader what happens in the film, without going into every detail but also without any tantalising questions or hints, and it should not avoid "spoilers".) --bonadea contributions talk 10:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Addition to the above: @Firstshow28: while I was writing that response, you went through your sandbox draft and removed all the independent sources. The three sources currently on the page are not appropriate as references: it's one IMdB link, one Amazon.com link, and one Bookmyshow link. They are more logically placed than the previous version's references, but they don't meet WP:RS, which some of the references you removed did. Please do not move your sandbox into the encyclopedia – I have moved it back for you. Note that there is no deadline and no hurry to get any article published. --bonadea contributions talk 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Who are you referring to when you say "we"? - X201 (talk) 10:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Link to a wrong person in a list

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Gary,_Indiana there is an incorrect link and I don't know how to change it: The 5th Mayor, William J. Fulton in the list, targets a man by that name who has a page, but it is not the correct William J. Fulton, who does not have a page. The real Mayor Fulton died in 1930 and the Fulton targeted in the list page, well, all you have to do is read his page to know that he was never the Mayor of Gary. How do I get rid of the incorrect link? How would I add a link to a correct page if I created one? MillerBeachSteve (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, MillerBeachSteve. Thanks for noticing this. The easiest thing to do is to edit the article, and remove the double square brackets from round the name. That will simply remove the link, and the name will appear in black. However, I see that all the names in the list are linked, though many of them are red links (links to articles which have not yet been written), so it would be a good idea to keep the link. If an article were written about this Fulton, it would have to be named something like William J. Fulton (politician). You can link to this specific article by using the pipe character:
[[William J. Fulton (politician)|William J. Fulton]] will display as "William J. Fulton" but link to the correct (currently non-existent) article.

(In fact, if such an article were written, I suspect that the existing article would get renamed "William J. Fulton (judge)" or the like, since neither man is an obvious "primary" subject for the name. But this need not concern you, since the link you will be setting up will be right in any case). --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine but there are no double square brackets around the name, nor are there any around others that have a link:

|align=center|5 | |align=center|William J. Fulton |align=center|March 1925 |align=center|1926 |bgcolor=#E81B23| |Republican |- MillerBeachSteve (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@MillerBeachSteve: The instructions by ColinFine only apply to manually written links. List of mayors of Gary, Indiana says {{sortname|William J.|Fulton}}. Here {{sortname|...}} means it uses Template:sortname. The template page has documentation showing that an optional link target can be added as a third parameter. I have done this in [21] with {{sortname|William J.|Fulton|William J. Fulton (politician)}}. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

My apologies, MillerBeachSteve. I didn't look at the source, and it didn't occur to me that it might be generated by a template. --ColinFine (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

PrimeHunter Thank you. I've had my own website since 1995 but never really gotten into Wikipedia formatting, etc. I need to learn more since I run across misinformation and have contemplating adding some things. Need to study though. I did think it had something to do with templates, but, like I said, I was in the dark. MillerBeachSteve (talk) 11:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Why are these websites referrers poorly cited?

I'm not a heavy user and would need some help. I added that Parov_Stelar is also a visual artist using printing, painting and silkscreen techniques, as well as a designer.

As prove for this addition to the page I added two great articles of renowned websites: 1. https://www.ooom.com/digital/parov-stelar-from-pop-music-to-art-shooting-star/2/ 2. https://competition.adesignaward.com/press-release.php?ID=63360

However, User:Edwardx classified these as 'poorly cited'.

Since I do not edit Wikipedia pages very often I would like to know why these citations are rated poor.

Thank you!

--MarkusInCharge (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

When somebody reverts your edits, MarkusInCharge, the person to ask for clarification from is the editor who reverted, in this case, Edwardx (whom I have just pinged). --ColinFine (talk) 18:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ColinFine. Edwardx, did you see the websites I used as a citation. They are quite renowned. 1. https://www.ooom.com/digital/parov-stelar-from-pop-music-to-art-shooting-star/2/ 2. https://competition.adesignaward.com/press-release.php?ID=63360 Please help/clarify.

--MarkusInCharge (talk) 10:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, MarkusInCharge and ColinFine. The Ooom article is an interview. The other article is a press release. Neither are independent of the subject. How are either "quite renowned"? Press releases are obviously unsuitable for establishing if someone is notable in a particular field. Is there any independent coverage in reliable sources? Edwardx (talk) 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Featured pictures

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the most featured picture in all Wikipedias is ? I see some pictures that are featured in over 7 different Wikipedias, but I imagine that there has to be some that are featured many more times. Thanks Aspenkiddo (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Aspenkiddo, there is a list at [22] ~~ Alex Noble - talk 11:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What should I do to clarify that I'm not paid for creating the article about Cleveroad?

Hi, what should I do to clarify that I'm not paid for creating the article about Cleveroad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moana122 (talk • contribs)

@Moana122: (courtesy link: Cleveroad). As far as I can see, no one has actually accused you of being paid to edit it. Can you point me to somewhere where this has been mentioned? Apologies, I see that I am wrong and you were warned on your user page. Well, if you are not being compensated in any way for your edits then that is fine - you can simply state that in response to the message, as you seem to have done. The article has been tagged as potentially being edited by someone with a 'close connection' to the topic. What is your connection to Cleveroad? Hug^syrup 11:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup thank you for the reply. I'm not connected to Cleveroad. I just protect the interests of my country. They are one of the most famous Ukrainian development companies that work around the world. They write useful software development guides for programmers and publish open-source code, that highly appreciated in the developer's community on GitHub. --Moana122 (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Moana122: ok then. Well, you can state that in reply to the message on your talk page, and then you've clarified the situation haven't you? As far as the tag on the article goes, it's probably not really a big deal right now because the article is nominated for deletion so let's see if it survives that and then worry about the cleanup tags. Hug^syrup 11:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup I will be grateful. One more question, can I edit an article on Cleveroad in this situation until I prove that I have no conflict of interest? And who will judge me? --Moana122 (talk) 11:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Moana122: if you have no conflict of interest, you can edit the article. Other editors may revert your edits if they are overly promotional or not backed up by reliable sources. Hug^syrup 11:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hugsyrup thank you. Should I delete this conversation? --Moana122 (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Moana122: No - no need to delete it. Hug^syrup 11:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Change Speedy Deletion Tag into a Deletion Discussion

Hi Everyone,

Is it possible to change a speedy deletion tag to a "Deletion Discussion". I mistakenly tagged an article for speedy deletion but that must be into the deletion discussion.DMySon 11:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@DMySon: you can't exactly 'change' the tag from one to another, but you can certainly remove the CSD and then nominate for AFD in the normal way. Hug^syrup 11:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Hugsyrup, Thank You for your tips. DMySon 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Move War" Help / Feedback Request

Hi Teahouse, I firstly appreciate your help. As a new editor nearly one month ago, my article Draft:Karlyn Percil was moved from draftspace to namespace pending AFC approval. Another editor saw this and moved it back to draftspace. I moved it back and suggested that if the edits weren't sufficient that the admin nominate it for deletion instead. Instead of doing this -- the editor moved back to draftspace with a move protection on the article. This exchange has now led to other editors not willing to provide feedback on the article to move it along the AFC approval process. I was a new editor at the time and the whole thing was super discouraging and hostile. I have since made over 100 edits on the article and continue to make edits on an ongoing basis. My Questions are:

1. Is it possible that because of this "move war" the article won't advance to mainspace (as one admin noted)?
2. Is it appropriate to delete the article and start fresh?
3. What are the next appropriate steps I should take to increase the chances of the article being approved (other than following the suggested revisions)
4. How do I go about finding willing editors that will provide constructive feedback despite the unfortunate "move war"

Thanks a bunch for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AMPLIFYHER2020 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to wikipedia. I do not see a "move war" per se, but rather the fact that you had submitted the article for AFC and then you moved it to article space yourself at least five times after it had been declined at AFC (example one, example two... and so on) resulting in it being moved back to draft space and move protected. I also see mention of a connected contributor, which raises COI concerns, so if you are one you need to declare that. The thing to do is fix the problems mentioned at AFC and resubmit it. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, AMPLIFYHER2020. Articles for Creation is an optional process but once you submit a draft, the process should be respected and followed. You have repeatedly tried to override that process, and that puts you in a bad light, in my view. One administrator has seen your efforts as problematic, and that's why the draft is move protected. It could have been deleted and salted, so you are in a better position than that. Your only option is to convince another AfC reviewer that this draft belongs in the encyclopedia. This appears to me on quick review to be a promotional biography of a motivational speaker/seminar leader of dubious notability. Biographies of such people flood Wikipedia but only a few of these people are truly notable. Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's career, and it looks to me on first glance that this is what you are trying to do. If so, please desist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Cullen328: Is there a PROMO/ISU username issue to be dealt with?[23] (already at UAA) Also, the draft talk page is being indexed by Google; is this supposed to happen? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

AlanM1, I believe the Google indexing is an artifact of the article being in the main space for a while. I expect that to go away. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you ThatMontrealIP Cullen³²⁸ for your feedback on this! In good faith, I've deleted the article and changed my username as to not be associated or conflict with the subject matter. I will work more on the article in draft and continue when the sources are more verifiable and continue to solicit feedback from the community. I do want to note that I think my actions were taken in bad faith from the get-go, which is pretty discouraging for new editors. In any event, thanks a bunch for all of the help as I am a more informed editor now. Tealbrain (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Wayne Keon

Can I get some help in regards to my wiki page Seems its tagged to be deleted I thought it was for a self photo I took which I own so I deleted and added again with what I thought was indication this was self photo which I owned I thought I was good to go now but still wonder???? Any comments Wayne Keon Keonw (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Keonw: the reason the page has been marked for deletion is not directly to do with the photo. Any issue with the photo is separate, but since you appear to have uploaded it under an appropriate license you are probably ok there. No, the issue with the page is that it appears not to meet our requirements for notability - you can see a complete explanation of the reasons, and a discussion of whether the page should be deleted, here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wayne_Keon. Hug^syrup 16:47, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's a site evaluating various writers that comes from a notable source https://canlitguides.ca/canlit-guides-editorial-team/indigenous-literary-history-1960s-1990/1970s-1980s-literary-developments/ Wayne keon Keonw (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Keonw: if you are making a case against the deletion of your page, you should do so at the deletion discussion that I linked above, and not here. Hug^syrup 17:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hannes Bieger Wiki page declined

Hey there,

hope you're well!

My submission for Hannes Bieger was declined a week ago, I'm working on getting the page in a more acceptable state and would love some guidance on how I can do this.

I'm gathering more citation links, which I believe to be a weakness of the submission.

If there's anything else that is lacking, please let me know.

Thanks!

Much love, Marcus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoldenbarnes (talk • contribs) 15:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The draft was declined for the reason stated in the grey panel in the decline notice. It's not the number of references that was the problem, it's the quality; so adding more references won't help, unless they're better than the ones you have already. I see that you have added a reference to an interview with the subject. That won't help at all with establishing that the subject is notable, as it's not independent of the subject. Maproom (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Remember, Marcus, that Wikipedia has essentially no interest in what the subject of an article says about themselves, so adding a hundred interviews won't make any difference (except for annoying any reviewer). Wikipedia is only interested in what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about them, so that is the kind of source that is essential. --ColinFine (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is there a way for wikipedia editors or administrators to revert changes in articles and if it is pssible, is there a way to stop that from happening? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello again, Rodrigo Valequez. In most cases, any editor can revert any edit, and there is no way to stop that from happening. Reverting edits is an integral part of how Wikipedia is developed as a communal endeavour. Please see WP:BRD for how this works in practice. --ColinFine (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @ColinFine:, what if the reverts were meaningless and done as vandalism. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Rodrigo Valequez, then, if you are absolutely 100% sure they are vandalism, you can revert back, possibly leaving a warning template on the user's talk if you know how.

If you aren't entirely sure, per wp:brd, go to the talk page and start a discussion. Don't revert if you aren't entirely sure, as this is wp:edit warring, and can lead to sanctions, especially, but not only, if you cross the 3 reverts per day line (wp:3rr). ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the edit war page gives a good list of things you can revert, without it being considered edit warning

1. Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting").
2. Reverting edits to pages in your own user space, so long as you are respecting the user page guidelines.
3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.
4. Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language.
5. Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider reporting to the Wikipedia:Files for discussion noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
6. Removal of other content that is clearly illegal under U.S. law, such as child pornography and links to pirated software.
7. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.: ~~ Alex Noble - talk 18:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Question

-I've deleted my question and the users names because I misunderstood him/her and it would most probably be offensive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo Valequez (talk • contribs) 18:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Rodrigo Valequez. If you think another editor's behaviour is unacceptable, your first step must be telling them so. If you can't reach agreement with them, the place to go is ANI. However, be aware that if you do, your conduct will be looked at as well. It seems to me that you had already cast aspersions on ********, on HughesDarren's talk page (I have deliberately not linked those two editors here), and ******** was replying to your comment in a fairly light-hearted way, and you replied in kind. You could ask him not to communicate with you again, if you are concerned. (Personally I find your remark about the Armenians offensive, but I'm not inclined to pursue the matter). --ColinFine (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about ******** giving ************ a 'Special Barnster' saying:

"Thanks for setting a new record in reverting my perfectly good edits. I hope you feel satisfied in erasing my years of hard work and research. Good f**king day."

and me telling him that it was probably meant to be offensive as an apersion? I was also joking when I was talking about the Armenians. He was calling me an 'Ottoman Sultan' and talking about 'President Erdoğan's watermelon selling'. I'm starting to think that I misunderstood him but I still haven't understood why he gave a 'Special Barnster' tagged like that. Thanks, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I deleted my comment about the Armenians, It was meant to be a joke but it would probably be misunderstood by other users. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes made to Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) - autobiographical details added

Hi, I have added biographical details to the page for Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) as the article said it required clean-up, as it was tagged as having been created/edited for undisclosed payments. Now I have checked that everything is factually correct and added a few more links and citations, does this tag need to be removed? What else can I do to clean it up sufficiently? ThanksFashionista2020 (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Fashionista2020

My opinion is No. Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) was created by an editor currently indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of an editor with at least 20 sockpuppet accounts. Suggests original creation was paid. David notMD (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) - deletion?

Hi, I tried to clean-up Kerry Taylor (businesswoman) article, but as it seems to have been created initially by a sock puppet editor, the changes I have made have made no difference to its status. Would it be possible to delete the article and start over?Fashionista2020 (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Fashionista2020

​The article was most likely created for payment, but the article is neutral and does not appear to require further cleanup. There's really no reason to have {{undisclosed paid}} there any longer (apart from being a deterrant to paid editors), so I've removed the tag. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Did Epstein kill Himself?

Hey Wikipedia, I've never asked a question here before, but I was just wondering what your opinions are on the Jeffrey Epstein "Suicide" case. Did he kill himself? Was it an assassination? If it was an assassination who hired the assassin? I just want your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby77777 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Bobby77777, and welcome to the Teahouse! I'm sorry, but this is a forum for seeking help on how to edit Wikipedia; that sort of question is not appropriate to ask here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bobby77777, also note our policies on living and recently dead people are rather strict on what we can say, and any accusations need to be backed up by good sources. ~~ Alex Noble - talk 16:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

How dare you question my motives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby77777 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nothing to do with your motives. Teahouse is a place to ask/answer questions about how to be an editor. The people who reply are volunteer editors. There is no "Wikipedia" organization to ask questions, nor to get factual answers, nor to express opinions. The Jeffrey Epstein article states the death as a suicide, although acknowledges there are opinions it was murder. This question is debated at length in the archived parts of the Talk page of the article. David notMD (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Bobby77777, no-one has questioned your motives. I, at least, don't even have any idea what your motives are. (Fwiw, I personally believe Epstein was killed, probably to prevent him from revealing what he knew. But this is the wrong place for such discussions.) Maproom (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing the last two lines of Wikipedia's entry for the doo-wop group The Clovers

Hi --

I landed on Wikipedia's page for The Clovers because I was interested to learn more about their hit song "Love Potion No. 9".

When I reached the last two lines of the article, which read as follows ...

The alternative version is also included on the soundtrack release of the movie American Graffiti.

Another one of their Songs, "One Mint Julep", was featured in the movie Carol.

... I made a couple of minor corrections (for instance, the song in the last line was referred to as "Mint Julep" instead of "One Mint Julep" and it didn't link to the Wikipedia entry on the song) but soon discovered I didn't know how to properly embed a link in the word "Carol" that would send users directly to the Wikipedia page for the movie and *not* to the disambiguation page for "Carol".

Then I thought it would be helpful to embed a link to the soundtrack page for the movie "American Graffiti", but I wanted to embed the link in the words "soundtrack release" and not in the title of the movie. But I don't know how to do that, either.

Can you help?

Thank you!

Proof Pro (Richard Hartzell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proof Pro (talk • contribs) 22:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• This is probably best explained with an example. If you put [[Carol (film)|Carol]] in the code, you get Carol when the page is displayed. Is that what you mean? Neiltonks (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Is Dynamic Sports Training Notable enough?

I want to create a page about a business called Dynamic Sports Training (DST), and was prompted to go here to see if it is notable enough. DST trains youth, high school, college and professional athletes and has been in the local news several times over the last few years, as well as featured in USA Today, Fox News, Houston Chronicle, The Boston Globe, St. Petersburg Times, Sporting News, ESPN, and Los Angeles Times. A staff member is also a coach for the Los Angeles Angels and has been in the news. Will this page be notable enough to create? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Therachelpoppe (talk • contribs) 22:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:NCORP to see if you think that business qualifies. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

How to add a subtitle in the search results of an article?

In the wikipedia search function, is there a way to include a subtitle under an article title in the search results? Im editing an artist entry and want to put a subtitle like "brazilian artist" below his name in serch results. How can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Kiua (talk • contribs) 13:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Pedro Kiua! If you mean Marcos Chaves, I don't think you can. We only add a "qualifier" to the title when there are several topics with the same name, see for example John Smith. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång The OP might also be referring to the "short description" extracted from WikiData. I have no idea how to include that in a search. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gråbergs Gråa Sång! Thanks for your answer. But several how many precisely ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pedro Kiua (talk • contribs)

Say that there were 2 different Marcos Chaves with WP-articles. Then it would be necessary to name at least one of them something like Marcos Chaves (astronaut) or whatever was relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Pedro Kiua: While you are typing a search at the mobile Wikipedia, the short description of matches is automatically shown. It's already "Brazilian artist" for Marcos Chaves due to Marcos Chaves (Q30938548) at Wikidata. The short description is not included in the search results page. The desktop version doesn't show it at all in searches. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Bauer Entertainment Marketing Page Declined

I recently created a page (Bauer Entertainment Marketing) that got declined due to it reading too much like an advertisement. What are some ways that I could fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbya2020 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Gabbya2020, and welcome to the Teahouse. That's actually quite a simple one to answer. If you look at Draft:Bauer Entertainment Marketing, ask yourself, "does this look like an encyclopaedia entry to me?" I'm sure' you'll agree it definitely does not. It's just a bulleted list of words. Please go off and find independent sources that talk about this company in sufficient depth and detail that you can be certain the subject meets This essential notability criteria. If you can't (and you should ignore all press releases, own websites, blogs and social media sites), then the company will never, ever have a Wikipedia page here. I'm afraid it's as simple as that. Do take a look at other encyclopaedic entries about notable companies to appreciate that a list of uncited names is not what we're after. Put simply: we aren't here to help promote businesses. We are here to reflect what society at large has talked about in those independent sources. I note that you have also tried to write about Draft:Robby Bennett (Magician) - an act promoted by Bauer Entertainment (according to your draft). This suggests you might well have a conflict of interest which you should immediately declare on your user page. And if you are paid or remunerated in any way (employeee/agent/CEO) then you should cease editing immediately and follow our obligatory requirements (see the guidance at WP:PAID) as to declaring who you are working for) before continuing any further editing. Hope this helps. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~.) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Further to Nick's message above, in the feedback (on the draft page and on your user talk page) the words in blue are wikilinks to pages which give you further advice. When you have read and understood those pages you are welcome to ask more specific questions. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Gabbya2020: Annoyingly, you also asked this question - and had it answered - at the Help Desk. In future, kindly ASK ONE QUESTION IN JUST ONE PLACE, as it really annoys volunteers who then simply waste their time answering stuff that has already been answered elsewhere! The gist of that answer was simply to read the instructions that the declining editor gave you - but I was too polite at the time to point this out to you. Thank you to David who did state the obvious. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Creating author page

Attempts to create a page for Author Robert B. Stone (in full disclosure, my father) have failed. Dr. Stone wrote over 80 books, including best-sellers such as Martinis & Whipped Cream (the first diet book of the high-protein, low-carb diet movement) and gave lectures globally on The Silva Method. But as these were in the 60s-80s, I'm having a hard time finding on-line citations or other evidence of notability, cited by Wikipedia editors as the reason for denying creating of the article. The published number of books he authored can be independently verified. I have some old newsletter clippings in paper about him. Can they be uploaded somehow and referenced? It seems many less well known, less successful authors have pages, so this appears a bit unfair. Can anyone suggest some advice? You can see more about Stone at robertbstone.com. Thank you, Dennis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dstone2 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Dstone2, and welcome to the Teahouse. Sources emphatically do not have to be on line; but they do have to have been reliably published. Articles from a major newspaper would be fine (you wouldn't reference the clipping, but rather cite the bibliographic information - title, date, author, name of paper etc. Even for on-line references, the URL is in a sense the least important part of the citation, and is just a convenience for the reader: the important part is the information which will allow a reader to locate the source even if the URL vanishes). But a "newsletter" may be different: only if it was published by an organisation with a reputation for editorial control and fact-checking would it be acceptable as a reference.

Some things that it might help you to understand: first, I advise you to think in terms of "an article about" not "a page for". Wikipedia articles do not belong to the subject (or anybody else) and they are neither for nor against a subject: they are a neutral summary of what people unconnected with the subject have chosen to publish about the subject. (I am aware that people talk loosely about "a page for somebody" without implying either ownership or partisanship, but I still think it is helpful to avoid the phrase). Secondly, Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said, written, published, or even done by the subject of an article unless it has been reported or commented on by an unconnected third party. If enough independent, reliably published sources are found, then there can be an article about your father, based on those sources; and it can certainly include a selected bibliography of his own works. But his own works cannot contribute to notability for Wikipedia's purposes.

As for the "less well know, less successful authors": notability as Wikipedia uses it does not mean any of popularity, importance, or success, (though these will often contribute to notability because people are more likely to write about a subject with those attributes). It is possible that a less successful writer has been independently written about enough to meet the criteria of notability. Another possibility is that the articles you are referring to do not in fact establish that the subjects are notable, and should be improved or deleted. Among our six million articles, there are unfortunatlely many that are substandard (mostly because they have been there a long time, before we set the bar as high as we do today). Please see other stuff exists. --ColinFine (talk) 23:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dstone2. It appears that you're referring to Draft:Robert B. Stone. According to the log for that page, it has been deleted a few times over the years, with the last time being in June 2017. The first time it was deleted was in September 2014 by an administrator named RHaworth per speedy deletion criterion G12. The draft was subsequently recreated (not sure when), but then deleted again in June 2016 by an administrator named Sphilbrick per speedy deletion criterion G13. Sphilbrick did restore the draft later that same day (perhaps you or someone else requested a WP:REFUND), but it was deleted once again by RHaworth in June 2017 per criterion G13. The draft doesn't appear to have been recreated by anyone at all since then.

Drafts which haven't edited in six months or more are subject to speedy deletion per criterion G13. Drafts don't need to be completed within a certain amount of time as long as someone continues to work on them; however, if too much time passes without anyone trying to work on the draft, it's considered to be abandoned and subject to speedy deletion. So, drafts which aren't meaningfully edited in six months or more are often deleted as part of routine cleanup. This is not a big deal and the draft can often be restored upon request. Criterion G12, however, is a big deal because the content contained therein is considered to be a copyright violation. This often happens when someone either directly copies-and-pastes content found on an external website onto Wikipedia or closely paraphrases such content. Neither of those two things are allowed because the would be considered a violation of Wikipedia's licesnig policy and thus drafts deleted per G12 are never going to be restored. Basically, editors are expected to write article content in their own words that reflects information found in reliable sources. It's possible to quote reliable sources is some cases, but this should also be limited. Since the last draft of the article was deleted per G12, RHaworth won't be able to restore it; he might, however, be able to further clarify why he deemed the content to be a copyright violation and what you can do to avoid the same thing happening again.

Basically, if you can establish that your dad meets Wikipedia:Notability (people), particularly Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals, then an article can probably be written about him. You would, however, be considered to have a conflict of interest with respect to the subject matter; so, you might not be the best person to try and write such an article. Perhaps, you should try asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment. One of the members of that WikiProject might be able to assess the Wikipedia notability of your dad and determine whether an article about him can be written. You might even find someone willing to write the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Different citation sources

So a bulk of my edits are for plants and animals, two passions of mine, I was told by another user that I need to be cautious about my citation sources, because of verifiability purposes. They then mentioned that a lot of animal pages are cited with books and reports. Can somebody link me the documentation for citing a book, also are scholarly magazines okay to cite? I often frequent the library and learning how to cite a book would be helpful. Thanks for any input, cheers -- PrecociousPeach (talk) 01:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The best way to cite a book is to use Template:Cite book. Many useful examples are given in the template documentation. --David Biddulph (talk) 01:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Awesome thanks! -- PrecociousPeach (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(ec) @PrecociousPeach: Most "scholarly" magazines and books are fine. The key is whether they are reliable in that they have real writers, fact-checkers, editors, and reputations to uphold. Have a look at WP:EASYREFBEGIN and let us know if you need further assistance. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the info and resources! -- PrecociousPeach (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

infinite dimensional polytopes?

Does infinite dimensional polytopes exist? and does it comply with the wikipedia:Notability? I found this: "infinite dimensional polytope", "polytopes in infinite dimensional spaces", Infinite Dimensional Compact Convex Polytopes (paper), Infinite Dimensional Polytopes (paper), math.stackexchange.com. -- Nanachi🐰Fruit Tea☕（宇帆·☎️·☘️） 16:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nanachi -- While the Teahouse is more for asking advice on how to edit Wikipedia than particular content questions, I can point you to the section Polytope#Infinite_polytopes, where we have a little content on infinite polytopes. Try your hand at expanding that section! If you have some reliable sources (like the book and papers you mentioned above), working on expanding an article is a great way to add to the encyclopedia without worrying about standalone notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Nanachi asked about infinite dimensional polytopes. The section you refer to is about infinite polytopes (i.e. they extend infinitely far) but in two or more dimensions. Maproom (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Why, yes. The section talks about polytopes of infinite extent and polytopes with infinite numbers of sides/degrees of freedom. Polytopes in an infinite number of spatial dimensions would make a nice addition. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:45, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

infinite-dimensional polytopes doesn't behave like finite-dimensional ones, and therefore infinite-dimensional geometry has rather bizarre properties markedly different from finite-dimensional geometry.(see [24]) I think it is a new topic, if it comply with the wikipedia:Notability, we should write a new article about infinite dimensional polytopes. (_{^{but I can not find the name for it. according to [25], the maximum dimensions of given name is 1 tridecillion-dimensional polytopes.)}} -- Nanachi🐰Fruit Tea☕（宇帆·☎️·☘️） 05:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

External links removed

I went to the Alachua_County,_Florida article this evening to find a link to the Supervisor of Elections. Wikipedia is very trustworthy in this regard--no telling what random results a search engine might show for such a search. Instead of advertising, fake sites, news articles, opinion pieces, or real sites with similar names, I can count on Wikipedia to link with certainty to the real thing.

Or at least I could. Recently, User:Flibirigit removed the whole list of external links except for a link to the county's home page with the message "remove excessive list of external links, Wikipedia is not a directory". Is it really so burdensome for Wikipedia to carry a few relevant, general-level links organized into helpful categories? The external links that were removed were easy to find in the page and categorized by subject area. The list of links on the county's website is neither. The county has multiple link headings that have to be clicked on and searched separately. The mobile version is worse--the hamburger menu brings up 80 links to scroll through (I counted them four times).

I'll grant that a few of the links on that list could be counted as superfluous, but certainly not the whole list! Also, some of the links in the removed list are not to be found on the county's web site, especially ones for the school board and the water-management districts.

One could argue that governments, businesses, or organizations should put easy-to-find short lists of high-level links on their websites, but that's a lot to assume. Part of the way that Wikipedia speaks with authority is from its links--links as part of the citations of sources and links to external sites. I'd always thought the list of external links on the Alachua County page was a good practice for Wikipedia. I'd like to see it back.

(Of note: many of my Wikipedia edits have been to add links or repair links to resources that moved. None of my edits have been to the Alachua County page, though. Yes, this is where I live.)

NoOneAsked (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi NoOneAsked. General guidance about external links can be found in Wikipedia:External links, but specific questions about specific links can be asked at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard or even discussed on the talk page of the relevant article. In priniciple, Wikipedia articles aren't really intended to be not online directories of links associated with a particular subject; so, while it might perhaps be a lot assume that local business, etc. post easy-to-find links on their websites, the fact that they don't doesn't really mean that Wikipedia should do so instead. In actual practice, however, figuring out whether an external link meets WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE or even WP:ELNO is not always so simple and is usually something that occasionally needs to be resolved through discussion. It's quite possible that there actually has been some discussion on these types of links in the past (or at least similar types of links), and a consensus was established not to add them. The best thing for you do here might be to initiate a discusison about this at Talk:Alachua County, Florida and seek further clarification as to why the links were removed. Perhaps, as you state, not all of the links needed to be removed, but that is probably going to have to be resolved through discussion. If you post something on the article's talk page, and don't get a response with a few days, then perhaps try adding a Template:Please see to WP:ELN since there are likely more editors familiar with EL stuff watching that page than there are watching the Alachia Country article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

"notable"

Hi,

is a singer of a music band, that exists for more the 10 years, notable? The band is currently winning a number of independet music awards in the Europe. The singer is a known video and visual artist besinde being a musician. thank you for your help. Person: Ksenija Sundejeva as metioned in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribes_of_the_City

Is a company, that has inspired a revival within its field noteable? the company has been portrait in news articles around the world. the foundes have been interviewed in national and internationl broadcasts from BBC to ARD. the company is not on social media and has no advatising budget / person / agenda. Meanwhile the social media footprint is hugh-soly by people using the companies classic service. would that comapy be "notable" on wikipedia? thank you for your advice. Portrait of the Company https://www.aperturetours.com/blog/2017/berlin-photoautomat BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01rrspl http://photoautomat.de/tvsendungen.html https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/photoautomat/?hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by EinarBaltasar (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, EinarBaltasar. Notability (in Wikipedia's sense) does not depend on what a person has done, or how many fans they have; it also does not depend on whether a band they play in is notable. The full guide for your musician is here, but in general the question to ask is, "have some people who have no connection whatever with the subject, and unprompted by the subject, chosen to write enough material about the subject, and had it published somewhere with a reputation for editorial control and fact checking, to form the basis of an encyclopaedia article about them?" If the answer is yes, then an article is possible. If the answer is no, then an article about them is not possible, because there is nothing that could go in it: Wikipedia is basically not interested in anything said by the subject or their associates, including in interviews and press releases.

The answer for the company is similar: the relevant guide is here. Being covered in news articles round the world is good - provided that these articles are independent of the company (not based on interviews or press releases) and are more than just passing mentions. Coverage of the founders may make the founders notable, but does not necessarily make the company notable: notability is not inherited. --ColinFine (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

In its current form the article is a deletion candidate, better fix that before you start more ambitious projects on that base. –84.46.52.151 (talk) 10:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Need to get a Brand page content modified

Hi There,

We want to get content for the brand page written & added to Wikipedia. Can you please suggest how to do the same.

Warm Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 10:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Raattzz: can you confirm, who is 'we' and what is your association with the brand page you want to get added? In general, for adding pages, I suggest you read this advice page: your first article and then follow the instructions to submit an article through WP:AFC. If you are writing about a company, you must first ensure that it meets the notability requirements for companies or it will be declined. In addition, however, it sounds as if you are associated with this company and perhaps working for them or on their behalf, in which case you must read WP:COI and WP:PAID and you must provide the disclosure of your relationship on your userpage. Hug^syrup 10:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I work with the brand. By 'we' I mean me & my team. The team had previously attempted to get the brand page up, but it turned out to be a failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Raattzz: Again, which brand? I cannot find any previous articles from this account. The other advice Hugsyrup gave you is still valid. Regards SoWhy 11:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The brand is Cashify & I work in the marketing team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 12:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Raattzz I found a deleted draft by that name. It was declined as a draft because it was not shown to meet Wikipedia's special definition of a notable company. The sources offered were entirely press releases or routine announcements, which do not establish notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, sources that have chosen on their own to take note of a subject and write about it. Wikipedia isn't interested in what a company wants to say about itself. In order for you to be successful in writing about your company, you would essentially need to forget everything you know about your company and only write based on what independent reliable sources state. Most people in your position cannot do that. It would really be best if you let independent people take note of your company and write about it. Also keep in mind that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily desirable. 331dot (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @331dot for responding. You are absolutely right by saying that being part of the brand my opinion will be biased. Could you please suggest an independent source who I could get in touch with to get this bit solved. As for the getting coverage in reliable sources, we have been working on the same in the past have got decent coverage there. Would be really great if you could help us with a direction here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs)

Can someone help here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 06:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not here to provide publicity for your company. So in short, no. Try paying for your company's advertising like most legitimate outfits do. John from Idegon (talk) 06:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking for publicity for my brand. Just quering about who to get in touch with to get this issue sorted. Please see the question posted above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raattzz (talk • contribs) 07:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Raattzz: I’m unsure what you mean by ‘getting this issue sorted’? Do you mean you want to find someone to write the page on your behalf? Do you have at least three reliable, independent, secondary sources that cover the company in depth? Hug^syrup 07:25, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Raattzz: if the "issue" you refer to is Could you please suggest an independent source who I could get in touch with to get this bit solved, you will need to read this information which will explain why what you are asking for is self-contradictory. An actual issue, from Wikipedia's point of view, is that you still haven't complied with policy regarding paid editing; there is information about that in the first post above, as well as two posts on your user talk page. Again: please do not make any other edits until you have made the mandatory disclosure. --bonadea contributions talk 10:32, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Help with Anxiety

There are already some articles about anxiety. Do you think a separate article about helping people deal with anxiety would be helpful? I created a draft called "help with Anxiety" but it was declined. Buttersongs2 (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Buttersongs2 Hello and welcome to the Teahouse. Your draft was just a list of tips in dealing with anxiety, and not prose about the subject; it also did not have independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. Please understand that Wikipedia is not a how to guide and cannot give medical advice(which includes mental/psychological help). Article coverage must be in the context of what reliable sources are saying.

I would suggest that you first propose changes on the article talk page of the anxiety article, perhaps for the Treatment section- if there is a consensus for your proposed changes, it can then be decided if they warrant a separate article. 331dot (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

There is a Category:Books about mental health, I added Feel Good 101 to it. Generally these topics have a very high level on enwiki, you'd need medical sources, no personal reports and no snake-oil, because false advice can be harmful for readers. Take care. –84.46.52.151 (talk) 10:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft Article

hello am writing a n article of the vocational school in Africa (Uganda) inorder to help young people get skills for a leaving, since the school is new 2 years. I have faced a challenge of getting more sources for references. Please of any help guide Draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ntinda_Vocational_Training_Institute.--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sandrah.Akol: unfortunately, sometimes if you can't find sufficient sources, that is a clue that the topic isn't really notable enough for Wikipedia just yet. If the school is only two years old then it's unlikely that there are hidden sources in old books or offline sources, so most likely what you can find with some internet searching is all that is available. If that isn't enough, then I'd advise parking the draft for the time being and perhaps coming back to it when more has been written about the topic. Hug^syrup 10:30, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Your url link was malformatted. You presumably meant Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute? A wikilink is usually better than a url. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this person notable enough for an article? Also, do I have a conflict of interest in writing it?

Hello,

I'm interesting writing an article on Joseph Matthew Sullivan (1871-1918). He wrote three editions of a dictionary entitled "Criminal Slang" in 1908 and a related journal article in 1918 by the same name. His limited published output plays an important role in documenting American slang. He merits 69 citations in Green’s Dictionary of Slang, extended discussion in [A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries], and numerous references in both volumes of the Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and mentions in other standard reference works. Other publications also reference Sullivan, including Feminism in Women's Detective Fiction, by Glenwood Irons, 1995 and Nancy Drew and Her Sister Sleuths: Essays.... by Michael G. Cornelius, ‎Melanie E. Gregg, 2008, for example. To me, these references constitute more than three quality sources.

In terms of conflict of interest, I'm working to publish an annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms and definitions, which will for the first time present everything in a single authoritative source. It's possible I will publish commercially on Amazon, but I may also make the publication available for free on my website. There is currently no comprehensive biographical source for Sullivan (that I can find).

Given all the above, can I (should I?) publish a Wikipedia article on the man?

Thanks.

Bixly777 (talk) 15:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hello Bill, I'm also a user. The subject seems notable if the sources you have are reliable, you might want to check Wikipedia:Notability.

The following information has been taken from Wikipedia:Notability:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

Also, I don't think that you have any conflict of interest since your work on an "annotated edition of Sullivan's criminal slang terms" has not been published yet. You could check Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia just to be sure.

So you technically could write an article about this individual if your sources are reliable.

I hope I've answered your questions. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure. His work being referenced is not the same as there being published content ABOUT him. David notMD (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say "My opinion is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. Just too obscure." David notMD? Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 16:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, Joseph Matthew Sullivan as the possible topic of a biography article is not notable in Wikipedia's sense of the word. A quick search at Google on his name yielded no content about him, i.e., no one who has written about him. People referencing his slang dictionary and his 1918 article does not contribute to him being notable. P.S. Put stuff in quotes, not in bold, when you are quoting something. David notMD (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​All mentions of him are very short, it is likely that his book is more notable than him. If that is the case, an article on the book could have a short section on the author. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually people have written about Sullivan (search Google for "Joseph M. Sullivan" "slang") and you'll find that people have written about him. See the 2013 Boston Globe ("How to talk like Whitey Bulger Mobster lingo gets its day in court"), The U of Arkansas "Female Detectives, Authority, and Fiction from 1864 to the 1930s." Most significantly check A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries: Volume III from OUP--there are 3+ pages about the man and his work--not just citations.

Having said that, what about the idea of an article on Sullivan's book, as noted above? Thanks.Bixly777 (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• As I've said before, you can write about it if you have reliable sources and if it's a notable subject. Writing about the individual is a better option in my opinion. If he isn't that notable and there aren't many sources about him, then there is little to no chance that your draft will get accepted. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​I would still say that the sourcing is too weak for an article about him. The sources for the book are also fairly weak but it might possibly scrape by, it is difficult to write more than a stub article when you're only working from short mentions. Your only conflict of interest would be if you are going to cite your own work (which you can if it is published by a publishing house, but not if it is self-published on Amazon), going through Articles for creation is recommended then. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A History of Cant and Slang Dictionaries states that Sullivan copied more than half of his definitions from other sources, which does not bode well for him or the book being notable. David notMD (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I fail to follow David notMD's reasoning here; plagiarism has no impact on notability; if later sources refer to the Sullivan book rather than the other sources, it is notable. For a historical example: the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are (for the most part) lifted from The Dialogue in Hell..., but the former is much more notable than the latter. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:09, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​You wouldn't have any conflict of interest if you haven't published work yet . You could write about him if you really wanted to but I wouldn't recommend it, he doesn't seem very notable and there's little chance that your draft would get accepted. Your sources also don't provide that much information, I'd be surprised if you could write a stub about him. It's your choice, I just don't reccomend it. (Writing about his book also isn't a great idea.)

Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​ Might he meet the notability requirements set out in WP:ACADEMIC? Sounds to me that he might. Chuntuk (talk) 11:47, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

• ​ Interesting subject, but self publishing a well researched book first from primary source information would retain your copyright. Back story seems interesting. A Boston bail commissioner, from Irish parents, living in Boston at the time of the Irish struggle for independence who wrote several articles on issues relating to law and law-keeping, often with gently humour.Sidpickle (talk) 12:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Large images in {{Portal image banner}}

Hi, I'm using a 6.9MB image as a portal banner on my User page and wonder if the full resolution version is being uploaded each time as there seems to be an upload lag.

If it is, can I force {{Portal image banner}} to use one of the lower resolution versions? Thanks.  RLO1729^💬  05:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

​The 6.9MB image is being downloaded when your page is opened, and then fetched from the browser's cache when it is next opened. I've fixed this problem in Module:Portal image banner so now only a 700KB image is loaded. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

​Thanks Thjarkur.  RLO1729^💬  12:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing Indian Institute of Rural Management - Have I added the template correctly?

Hi, I feel that I can significantly improve this article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Rural_Management - and have added the template {{In use}} at the top of the page above the pointers. Since am doing this for the first time, I would like to ask whether I have added/positioned it correctly or need to make modifications before proceeding? Also do I need to add any other information before starting on the content? Thanks in advance, Tycheana (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

When you wish to refer to a Wikipedia page, it is better to use a wikilink like Indian Institute of Rural Management rather than a url like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Institute_of_Rural_Management. You used the template Template:tlx which linked to Template:In use, rather than using the "In use" template itself. You should change {{tlx|In use}} to {{In use}}. --David Biddulph (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tycheana: I have fixed the template for you. Please remove it after you've finished editing the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you David Biddulph, will bear in mind while referring to pages in future, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Nick Moyes for fixing the template for me. Also confirming that I should put the 'Under Construction' template in case it requires further sessions. Thanks again, regards, Tycheana (talk) 11:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Tycheana, generally, that template isn't used much. I'd just remove the template when you're done for your "session". ~~ Alex Noble - talk 15:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Line Breaks in Regex Search/Replace?

In the editor, The search (and replace) tools, with "Regex" button depressed, don't seem to support Line Break, /n. Also line break is not mentioned in the special terms at Help:Searching/Regex. I needed this at en:wikisource but it applies here as well. I know I can workaround by copying into my favorite editor but I thought I'd ask.. Nissimnanach (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Hi Nissimnanach--the regex facilities at WP are fairly basic, but as noted in the section Help:Searching/Regex#Metacharacters, the dot '.' metacharacter does match a newline, so you could use this in a pinch. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nissimnanach: Line break is supported in the editor regex but as normal in regex it's \n with backslash and not /n with a normal slash. Help:Searching/Regex is not about the editor but about the standard search box on all pages which only searches for matching pages and cannot make replacements. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Primehunter: Perfect, thanx! Nissimnanach (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Help with article

Hi, can you help me figure out how to improve my article to get it approved? Thanks, John Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Darryn_Melerine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecr8tve (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

In the feedback, both on the draft page and on your user talk page, the words in blue are wikilinks to further advice. Which parts of that advice don't you understand? --David Biddulph (talk) 21:01, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, David. I've gone through two revisions, and had them both declined. I feel like the subject is worthy of an article. This is honestly my first article and I am at a loss of where to go next. Do I hire someone to help me write it so that it will get approved? Can you or someone review the article to tell me what is wrong with it? Any help is appreciated. Thank you. Thecr8tve (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Thecr8tve You've declared that you are paid, but not who is paying you and/or the client.(I assume it is Mr. Melerine). Hiring someone would make no difference. How does Mr. Melerine meet the Wikipedia definition of a notable person? The sources provided don't seem to have the significant coverage required. 331dot (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

how do i delete lies on a page about me???

i want to correct lies about me (Bill Binney) on a Wikipedia page about me. How do I do that? I've tried but can't get it changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:147:C000:D210:9E8:A81C:3B9C:A76 (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Assuming you are William Binney, please post your concerns on the talkpage. However, that page has Pending Changes enabled, which means a decently experienced editor reviews every edit before it goes live. I'd be inclined to say there is nothing wrong. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. Wikipedia does not have a page on you..? Please provide a link. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 23:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi IP 2601:147:C000:D210:9E8:A81C:3B9C:A76. Since you're editing from an IP account and didn't provide a link to the article you're referring to, there's really nothing anyone can really do other than to recommend that you take a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself , Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Making uncontroversial edits and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement.

Wikipedia doesn't have anyway of really knowing who you are unless you want to create an account and have your identity verified by Wikimedia OTRS; moreover, even if it did, it wouldn't simply delete the article simply because you request such a thing. If you have concerns about things written about you on Wikipedia, then there are Wikipedians who will be willing to try an help you; however, article content will be assessed on whether it meets relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines and will only be revised/removed if it doesn't. So, please read the three policy/guideline pages I've linked to above, and follow the steps listed there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Edits to tables

Can I get pointed to the right source for how to edit a citation in a table? I know I can't use the visual editor but have been unable to figure this out from other sources I've reviewed. Thanks BDD user (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

​You can edit citations in tables by first double-clicking on a table-cell and then clicking on the citation. If that doesn't work, you can have a look at Help:Referencing for beginners, learning how to edit the citation templates in the source editor does take a little bit of effort. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@BDD user: If that help page confuses you, I've written an alternative guide at WP:EASYREFBEGIN. Let us know how you get on. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft failed verification?

A draft at Draft:Jung Ye-rin was rejected with the following comment:

"This draft has been resubmitted with the statement that the artist had a single that was in position 37 on the Korean national chart. However, the link to the Korean national chart lists a different song in position 37, and no listing for the artist or any of her songs could be found in examining the chart. This submission has therefore failed verification. Please do not resubmit without providing clearer information, or discuss at Talk:GFriend. If this draft is resubmitted without proper discussion and without showing how she satisfies musical notability, this draft will be Rejected."

However, the reference for the Gaon Digital Chart (Reference #7) does show the correct song at position 37 (written under its Korean title, "왜 또 봄이야") and the artist is credited for that song (under her given name, written in Korean, "예린"). I believe the reviewer may have followed Reference #8 next to the Downloads number of 82,419+ which shows the same song at position 84 with 82,419 downloads for the month of March 2017, which serves to verify a lower bound on the number of downloads for the song. How can I make sure that the draft demonstrates musical notability? 76.68.127.195 (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The talk page of the draft might be a better place to discuss the review for archival purposes. I've started a new section there, at Draft talk:Jung Ye-rin#Source verification, and copied your post above to it. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Article completely one sided and dependent on lopsided sources

I don't have the time or talent to rebut this evil article. Someone emailed this wikipedia page to me, but it is full of one-sided dubious sources. It should be tagged, at least, with a warning. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meakfish (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What specific sources are dubious? Ruslik_Zero 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

See the Archive on the article's Talk page for past discussions of accuracy of article. David notMD (talk) 03:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

removing link to my sandbox/ talk page

Hi, I wrote an article last year on Ashi Tashi Dorji and had problems (due to my inexperience) in moving it into the mainspace. An editor/admin PRehse kindly moved it for me, however I am still linked to the Ashi Tashi Dorji Talk page via my sandbox talk page, which links to The article's talk page. Please can you help me clear it. Doctor 17 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doctor 17: Hi. I've just tagged that sandbox talk page for deletion. It should get deleted soon enough. If you want to create the sandbox talk page again, you may just click on the red link. Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 04:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

many thanks tLoM (The Lord of Math) Can I ask what the sandbox talk page is used for? Also, how do I create that vertical bar, | , the one used in the coding of a name. There must be a simpler way than copy and pasting...?Doctor 17 (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: the vertical bar is called a "pipe" character. On North American QWERTY keyboards it is usually fond close to the return key on the right side, on the same key as the "\" character.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

so it is! thanks ThatMontrealIP Doctor 17 (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nonprofit

Hello from Ocean Blue Project. We have had a few interns and other supporters asking why we don not have a Wikipedia page for our nonprofit.

How do we request a page for www.oceanblueproject.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B069:27C5:988A:7401:E946:A744 (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I'm not a Teahouse host, but I saw this question, and decided to answer it nevertheless. I understand that you want a Wikipedia article for your nonprofit company Ocean Blue Project. However, you have to demonstrate that the company is notable - that is, it qualifies for an article. According to the notability guidelines on companies, the company must have received significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. For instance, these do not count:

• The home website;
• A news entry that just mentions "Our Blue Ocean";
• Court hearings and cases, for they are primary;
• Social media profiles, for they are not reliable and are primary.

Currently, I don't seem to be able to find a lot of information (other than passing mentions) on Ocean Blue Project (a Google News search revealed mainly passing mentions and the main search revealed just the home page and social media profiles). Honestly, I don't think this company is notable yet, but if you can demonstrate notability please tell me.

One more thing: please don't go ahead to create the page. Even when you have an account that is sufficiently old, after which you are technically allowed to create pages, doing so would be considered a conflict of interest, and would result in it being likely deleted. If it is really notable, you may request for the page to be created at WP:Articles for Creation (see the instructions there), and provide the sources. It is best to leave willing editors to write it, since the article they write will be written from a more neutral point of view.

All in all, I'm sorry that the company is not currently notable enough. Please don't create the article for it, even when it becomes notable. Thanks for asking at the Teahouse! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 04:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Another way of looking at this: not one thing in the universe - not a person, not a company, not a band, not a brand, not a place has a Wikipedia page for themselves. Wikipedia has articles on many notable people, companies, non-profits etc. Those articles do not belong to their subjects, are not controlled by their subjects, may not be used for telling the world about their subjects (aka promotion), and should be almost entirely based on what people unconnected with their subjects have published about them. --ColinFine (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Please consider adding plant growing zone info to plant info sites

Love looking up plant information on Wikipedia - would appreciate being able to find the growing zones as part of the information available on each reference. Can a line be added to the basic format so zone info could be listed in an easy to see format? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:2A (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Are you talking about putting this information in an infobox? --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 16:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The functionality to add that info is already in the genus and species infoboxes, if it's not visible then it means that it hasn't been added. We need people who are interested in that aspect of the subject to add that kind of info (HINT) - X201 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The Infoboxes ({{speciesbox}} and {{taxobox}} are intended to give data on taxonomic aspects of the plant, not their habitats or hardiness, which are very dependent upon where in the world the species is growing. By 'growing zone' do you mean Hardiness zone? If so, I doubt more than 1 in 1,000 articles would ever end up having anyone including that kind of data. To expect it across all plant taxa (and thus to include it as a parameter in a taxobox) is asking too much. That said, I always encourage creators of new species articles to add range and habitat information whenever I'm reviewing a new page. I find it frustrating when a page creator can't actually be bothered to read their own sources and extract really useful basic data from them. That said - the references are always going to be there for someone else to do the tidying up. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Day Music

Hello! I'm a new editor to Wikipedia, but not a novice editor. I put an article out onto my sandbox about a local New England musician, Nancy Day, 2 weeks ago. It was written by me with just several historical points by her that I incorporated into the text. It is currently on my sandbox. How do I get it into the encyclopedia section of Wikipedia? Thanks!

BillyK — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Klessens (talk • contribs) 13:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello @William Klessens:, to request an experienced editor to review your work and possibly get it included in wikipedia you would have to press the ‘Publish Page’. Another button will appear allowing you to submit your draft for review. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Under unintended consequences, an hour after you asked this question your Sandbox draft was speedy deleted as promotional/webpage-like rather than encyclopaedic. Suggest you review WP:YFA to get a better idea of how to craft an article. Also, please 'sign' your comments by typing four of ~ at the end. David notMD (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.William Klessens (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

How would one go about asking to change Wikidata statements (not the information in them but what they are)?★Trekker (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

​Are you referring to the label/structure of the fields? If so, you can click on the label and edit for example the property d:Property:P1448. – Thjarkur (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I would wish to expand Wikidata labels for parterns, I'd like to add things like "Fiance"/"concubine"/"common-law spouse" etc as options.★Trekker (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, *Treker. These are at present all special cases of d:Property:P451. If you want to argue for more specific cases, I think d:Property talk:P451 is the place to do so; certainly not in Wikipedia. --ColinFine (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks!★Trekker (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

General Understanding | Speedy Page Deletion

• Pearl of Peace EV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (AfD)

Hi, if a page was once speedily deleted for lack of notable references, can it be speedily deleted again if some other editor found the subject interesting, found enough reliable and independent sources to create a stub-page, and published it? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

The page wouldn't be deleted because of the lack of references, it probably wouldn't even be accepted as an article when it was first submitted as a draft. If information was later added without providing references it would be tagged.

I believe what you mean is:

"If the article didn't meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines and was deleted. Then if it got re-created with reliable and independent sources or the subject somehow met Wikipedia's Notability Guidlines, could it be deleted again?"

If the problems that caused the original article to be deleted were fixed and the draft was accepted, then it probably wouldn't be deleted unless other problems were found. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

​The article having been previously speedy deleted does not influence whether it will be speedy deleted again, if you create a new article that makes a clear claim of significance and explains how the subject is notable it will most likely not be speedy deleted (although a deletion discussion may be started). If the article was previously deleted after a deletion discussion, it may be preferable to submit it for review. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Rodrigo Valequez: and @Þjarkur:. Yes, that's what I actually meant. Sorry for not phrasing it better. This discussion is in reference to the article on Pearl of Peace. I read the actual deletion discussion from the first time it was deleted and made sure that the problem is resolved. However, it was deleted again through speedy deletion without any discussion this time. I had contested the deletion providing reasons for the page to stay, but didn't get a response to it. No other problems, if found, were highlighted. I created a stub based on the information and resources I found in my research. The only reason provided in the diff is that it has been deleted because it was deleted once before. I have 2 questions at the moment, if you can please provide an answer:

1. Can I retrieve the published draft? I forgot to save a copy of it on my computer and had created the draft only on Wikipedia.
2. If retrieved, should I publish it through the AfC process again?

Thanks for all your help. FelixtheNomad (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

​You can ask the deleting admin to restore the article to your drafts or to email it to you, they often do so if asked. I would recommend submitting it to AfC. However, according to a Google search, the horse does not pass WP:GNG and is not notable enough for an article. The article was originally created by a paid editor. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

​ I found the horse listed as 'of possible interest' by the deleting admin here on the WikiProject Equine, so I looked it up and found its pedigree listed on multiple sites, a full feature article on The Times magazine website, and references to how it is unique in its genes and coat colour. Found an article on how the horse was also part of the 2016 James Bond movie's marketing campaign. I thought that's a notable horse. Sure, not enough for a full length Wikipedia page, but good enough to go on as a stub and become part of the Equine project here to be expanded later on when I could find and source more information. FelixtheNomad (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

​The subject sounds notable, could you provide us with the sources you just mentioned? Also, do you know the username of the admin that deleted your article? I’ll try to get him/her to restore the article if you can provide the links. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi​. Sure thing, the deleting admin was Justlettersandnumbers (talk · contribs) and here are the links:

1. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/golden-horse-is-mane-attraction-zkwwv7ncqjn (unique genes and coat colour)
2. https://pegasus-magazine.co.uk/pearl-of-peace-the-gold-andalusian-stallion/
3. https://www.horsetalk.co.nz/2013/11/22/gene-genie-britains-golden-boy/
4. https://www.allbreedpedigree.com/pearl+of+peace+ev (pedigree)
5. https://www.lgancce.com/lgpreancce/asp-publico/arbolGenealogicoPRE/ConsultarArbolGenealogicoPRE.aspx?ID=XbxrT25wQsk= (pedigree)
6. https://blog.petlondon.net/2016/02/06/pearl-of-peace-for-harpers-baazar/ (feature in James Bond movie)
7. https://www.horsedeals.com.au/listings/pearl-of-peace-ev-graded-andalusian-pre-stallion
8. https://www.horse-photographer.co.uk/pearl-of-peace/
9. https://simplebooklet.com/publish.php?wpKey=d9B7fIcscxmGkSQfVkIR8K (page 109 and 113 - image feature)

I think these were all the links. Thank you. FelixtheNomad (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it, as WP:G4 – although not identical to the version deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl of Peace EV, it did not in my opinion address the problems present in the earlier version (lack of notability, poor sourcing – see the list of sources immediately above! – etc). I have already suggested to FelixtheNomad that he take this to WP:DRV if he wants it reviewed – I can only repeat that suggestion. He could also enquire at WT:Wikiproject Equine whether other editors think the topic notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Allright, I’ll get working on it. Regards, Rodrigo Valequez (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Interviews

I interviewed many people about the history of art in Las Vegas. I would like to place this information on Wikipedia. Is this possible? The information has never been published so it is valuable.

Thanks, Doug — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2C00:EEE:0:0:0:2DC9 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Doug. I'm afraid this is not possible. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. That means we only include information that has already been published somewhere before. Anything else is original research, which we don't include. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

trying to fix a broken link in a Wikipedia page

The link from the Wikipedia page for Joana Vale Costa to her WTA profile doesn't work. I went to the WTA site and did a search for her name. I found the following works: https://www.wtatennis.com/players/318075/joana-vale-costa but when i tried to fix the Wikipedia page, i see that is not how the link is programmed. It looks like this: * Joana Vale Costa at the Women's Tennis Association but it doesn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Blair H (talk • contribs) 17:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Scott Blair H:  Fixed The solution was two-fold: the call to {{WTA}} needed to be changed to just {{WTA}} (with no parms) to cause the template to look up the link info from Wikidata property 597 (WTA player ID). I then edited that property (clicking on the small pencil icon after Women's Tennis Association produced by the template in the article) to correctly mis-spell her linked name (valle→vale). Editors apparently chose this as the solution when the links changed, modifying the template to look up the necessary value in Wikidata, replacing most of the {{WTA|nnnnnn}} calls in articles with {{WTA}}, and setting the properties correctly. There were apparently some that were not done. See d:Property talk:P597#URL was not working. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

what is the right way to cite same book multiple times w/different page numbers

how do i reuse same reference with different page numbers. see Mach's principle, it contains multiple references with different page numbers. and please revert 9-57 and 530 edit summary edits. Leela52452 (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Leela52452:

Some article prose<ref name="Smith">{{Cite book|...}}</ref>{{Rp|12}} and some more{{R|Smith|27}}.
Here's some more.{{R|Smith|112}}

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

After the ref, you add something like this < ref name=GLG/ >{ {rp|46–47} }, where rp means "reference to page," I believe. Then you type in the page number. I've forgotten where where you find this info on WP. (I had to type spaces into the examples I've just given.)BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

See WP:REFB#Same reference used more than once and WP:REFB#Page references. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I use (I found it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rp. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can figure out the wikitext, there's one example in Marlowe portrait. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Copyright

Hi, I have a question regarding the copyright release of a picture. On the article of a celebrity, I found a display picture that on its description claims to be a screen capture of a Youtube video with a CC license, however when accessing the video I noticed it does not have any type of license. Would this be a reason for the picture to be taken down? and if so, what should be the process to request the removal? Thanks for all your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFulham (talk • contribs) 14:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@DFulham: This is answered at WP:HD. Please don't ask the same question in multiple places. RudolfRed (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What exactly does "consensus" mean on Wikipedia?

So, I hear a lot about "Consensus" on Wikipedia. What exactly does that mean? I read the page for it, but it was kinda long and confusing... could someone help clarify it? Thanks, King of Scorpions 18:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am sure there are so-called "accepted" definitions, but the important thing is that it does NOT mean "a general agreement" (the dictionary definition). It means whatever the closing administrator thinks it means, which is usually "the majority agreement" or "the argument for which I can find some Wikipedia rule or guideline to base my decision on." Argumentative editors never want true consensus; they want their side to win out; thus the closing admin has to just simply make a decision. Sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but there it is. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It depends on situation. If I make an edit to an article and nobody reverts it, it can be seen as a kind of consensus, but it can also mean that nobody noticed it. Much is worked out in informal discussions, sometimes with only 2 editors, which never are closed by admins, and these can be pointed at as consensus. Consensus can change later, but depending on situation it can be "demanded" that such a change is shown in a new discussion.

Regarding admin-closed discussions, sometimes policies are important, like "Should this article call this person a murderer?". Sometimes it's more of a headcount, like "Should this article have this or this free image in the lead?" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! King of Scorpions 20:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

King of Scorpions, it is always wise to read the relevant policy, which in this case can be found at Wikipedia: Consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

New page / need help with sources

Hello, I'm new to Wikipedia and just drafted a new page for "Scott A. Shay" and having issues with reliable sources to get it published. I'm asking for assistance with finding approved sources for him. He is a co-founder of a bank and author of 2 books.

Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SugiOrange (talk • contribs) 17:28, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources, what makes you think that he is notable by Wikipedia's definition? --David Biddulph (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It is up to you to find refs. Right now what you have is not good enough and the resubmittal will be declined. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why has the draft been resubmitted in this state? Books written by the subject do not demonstrate notability. What are needed are reliable sources independent of the subject. --David Biddulph (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

He is founder of a notable bank and has more relevance than many authors allowed pages in Wikipedia, but needs work on sourcing and details beyond founding the bank unfortunately, in most reputable sources that's all the Relevance given to him, though did find two related to his book and one on taxi Medallions crisis:

• Comments as Signature Bank Director/Founder [[26]] [[27]][[28]] [[29]]

• Book Review-[[30]] [[31]]

• Taxi Medallions - [[32]]

Slywriter (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Slywriter's heart is in the right place, but these references to Mr. Shay mention him only in passing. I suggest that Slywriter turn his attention to other people who might be more Notable. I did a search for "Scott Shay banker" on Newspapers.com and came up with nothing. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Usi (album)

Hi, I think I screwed up in naming this--sorry. Could someone please advise? Thanks very much. Caro7200 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I moved it and will do the DAB, thanks. Just let me know if that is not correct. I appreciate it. Caro7200 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi everyone, I would like to add info to an article regarding a bestselling book, however I was wondering regarding the source: on most bookshops, including Amazon, the book is said to be a New York Times best seller, would the commentary of this sites suffice as a source? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeFalafel (talk • contribs) 18:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If it is a New York Times Bestseller, it should be possible to source it to the NYT itself without using a (potentially dubious) store front like Amazon. QuiteUnusual (talk) 18:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, LeFalafel. the rank in the NYT bestseller list is usually considered very important, and also the number of weeks on the list. Further, the divided into several sections (the specific ones vary from time to time), & the importance of books in the various sections can be a factor also. When you find the actual list in the NYT, you should either gives the specifics in the article for example, "the book was #18 in the Feb.31, 2099 "self-help" NYT best seller list." or "the book was # 1 in the hardback fiction NYT bestseller list for 34 consectutive weeks, starting Feb 31, 2099. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Notability of a brand versus a designer

I submitted an Article Creation about fashion accessories designer Jonathan Meizler of the brand 'title of work.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonathan_Meizler I submitted it the wrong way the first time (sorry), and got this message:

"As you are a new editor, please submit this article through the articles for creation process. Please note that including nearly 50 citations is not necessary, and in fact is likely to only slow down the article's approval; an article with just 5 good sources is better than an article with 5 good sources and 20 mediocre ones. Including an exhaustive laundry list of collaborations and clients is also unnecessary and smacks of promotional writing. I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)"

So I removed citations that I thought were extraneous (and some that I realized included 'title of work' accessories, but were not actually identified in a caption or in text), and really stripped it down so it would be more focused.

When I resubmitted for consideration, I then got this message:

"The fashion brands are likely notable, but I do not see how this person is notable independent of the fashion companies mentioned." This was part of a larger "not accepted at this time" message from User:Sulfurboy

I'm a little confused. When I removed citations I think I lost the person's notability. On the other hand, would it make more sense to make the entry about the 'title of work' company, making the founder and designer (Meizler)subordinate to the brand? Thank you for any guidance.

@Rosguill: @Sulfurboy: --Dakotajone (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Dakotajone, from looking at the difference between the version that I moved to Draft and the version that Sulfurboy declined, I don't think that you removed any sources that would have been able to help establish Meizler's independent notability, since only one of the sources removed mentioned Meizler directly, and even then it was directly in the context of the brand 'title of work' [33] (it's also not clear that we should consider this source to be reliable). Whether it's better to write an article about the brand or the designer depends on how the subjects are covered. If reliable sources are primarily covering the brand, and mention the designer only in the context of the coverage of the brand, then it's better to subordinate our coverage of the designer to the brand. On the other hand, if there was a bunch of coverage of the designer and their life and work across many contexts, but not very much direct coverage of the brand (e.g. if all of the coverage was of Famous McPerson creating a new line, but no reviews or other coverage of the line are available other than brief announcements or mentions in the context of coverage of McPerson's life), then it would make sense to have the brand be a subsection of a biographical article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

my usual advice is to write the article on the person if it is possible that they may be significant now or in the future for more than just the single brand (or book, or whatever) When that happens, articles about the person are easily expanded. DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

What must be done when I suspect a user of being biased if not a paid operative?

I have been observing the talk page of a politician. It seems to me that the article is written in a biased way— and some investigative journalism has shown that the article may have been created and definitely at some point of time the has been managed by said politician or someone in his camp. There is one user who aggressively opposes any proposition to modify the article seemingly past minor edits despite the article potentially requiring a WP:NPOV overhaul. This user has also been extremely active in the talk page of an election— I have also been looking at that once in a while— that Mr. Politician has recently participated in, and my view is that Mr. User is there also a force to oppose any unfavorable coverage and vice versus.

What must be done in such a situation? I am worried he has maintained a veneer of plausible deniability which makes matters further difficult to handle. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GGLLFFP, Honestly, I recommend passing this up to people that *do* know how to handle it, like an administrator. Send an email to an admin that you know has been recently active. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 17:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Moonythedwarf— do you think it is, for the lack of a better word, ok to take it to an admin? He has worked hard to maintain plausible deniability. GGLLFFP (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GGLLFFP you can also bring up your concern at WP:COIN. You will need the article name, the user(s) in question and examples of the parts you feel might be paid or COI editing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a rather drastic measure at this stage but I’ll certainly use it if it comes to that. Thanks !GGLLFFP (talk) 17:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GGLLFFP It is actually a preferred method to address COI concerns, and is much less than drastic. When you post your concerns there, other editors can assess them and/or take action if necessary. It is a bit like making an announcement at a gathering, allowing people to take notice of the issue. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's really better to post the name of the article here, surrounded by two brackets on each side, and then any interested person can take a look and see what the problems are. Of course, then there is always taking it first to the Talk pages of that article; that is the normal first step. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I can see from looking at the pages you've been editing that you're talking about Pete Buttigieg. This article now has 149 editors and 244 watchers, so your concerns will certainly get an examination if you take them to the Talk page. In fact, I'll go see for myself. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Also see talk page archive of 2020 Iowa Democratic caucusesGGLLFFP (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There's an interesting read at WP:Boomerang. Anybody who follows a given editor can always check to see how many, if any, other articles the editor has been working on. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am in fact hesitant to launch an admin report right away. But I don’t think it would be useful to approach this user on their talk page since I don’t see it as likely they will change their behavior (especially if they are paid not to do so). Would it be gainful to do so in light of moving the dispute process along?GGLLFFP (talk) 03:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Try this new template!

Hi, I've just made a new template called {{Interlanguage link with draft}} (or {{illd}}). It is based on {{ill}} and made to specifically link also to a draft article, addressing the problems as mentioned in this user essay. If it works well, it might be merged into {{ill}}, as my template is fully compatible with {{ill}}. Please give feedback and suggestions on it, and thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi The Lord of Math. I'm not sure about the technical aspects of your template (Primefac does a lot of work with templates so perhaps he can take a look at that), but it seems that you’re suggesting/hoping to use this to add links to drafts in some way. That's probably OK for user pages and other pages outside of the mainspace, but links in Wikipedia articles are not really supposed to link to drafts/userspace drafts as explained in MOS:DRAFTNOLINK. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. In the Article space we should not be linking to drafts, and while I could potentially see some use in the non-Article spaces, I'm not sure it's necessary. I think the best place to garner opinions would be at the talk page of {{ill}} itself, since editors interested in that template will be more likely to see and comment on the new template and any potential merger. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: Yes- I'm in agreement with these concerns. It seems highly likely to encourage editors to include links to all sorts of ill-formed drafts (against our guidelines) and be used as a shortcut to avoid having to create a properly formed article. Used within mainspace articles, it would open up a Pandora's Box of links to all sorts of drivel, with absolutely no editorial control or oversight over what that content might subsequently change to within those drafts. For use in a non, mainspace page, I see no reason for not simply including a hyperlink to any draft. Although I can see its theoretical usefulness, I believe any small benefit it might bring is far, far outweighed by the risks it opens up. As such (and unless you can advance a very strong argument for its deployment) I would argue for its deletion - sorry. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes, Marchjuly, and Primefac: I see an obvious place of using this template: in Request article pages, as in WP:RA/NS. Would it be a good idea to use it there? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 13:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to test it, say, in a section in a WikiProject RA and see its effects? Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Just an addendum, I agree that mainspace isn't where this template would be used, and when creating an article users are notified of a draft version (so when I try to create Newman's conjecture I see a notice linking to Draft:Newman's conjecture, but I figure if the article appeared both as articles in different language(s) and as a draft, users may be notified of both. Anyway comparing the code, it is pretty much identical to the {{ill}} template. Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 14:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: Could you show me how your templated link might look both in a mainspace article, and in another draft, each linking with a draft of a notable UK topic (called: National Pollinator Strategy) that I have been slowly working on over the last two years, but never finished? It's at Draft:National Pollinator Strategy. Unless there is a sureproof and technical way of preventing your new template ever being deployed in mainspace, I'm not sure there is much use in testing it out, as I think it's too open to being misused. (I really am sorry to have poured cold water on your idea like this - I feel awful in so doing, and am hoping I might be missing something really obvious in its benefits.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 15:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I don't know much about the strategy, so I'll have to assume that this topic has a page in Spanish called es:Patrick Zachmann and a page in French called fr:Évolution du collège épiscopal français en 2013 (both are random pages in those wikis). Then it would look something like this: National Pollinator Strategy . It looks the same everywhere, but I'm still trying to improve it, and there are certainly ways to disallow a link to drafts in mainspace (using template coding and magic words). Thanks! tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 15:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: OK, thanks. Well, if there are foolproof ways of preventing deployment in mainspace articles, then I guess there might be some useful functionality in highlighting the existence of a draft. So, as was suggested - it'd be best to discuss on the 'ill' template talk page or at WP:VPP, perhaps. Good luck with it, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: I've added a way to stop the Draft link being displayed in mainspace. (The other language links work fine). Thanks. tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 01:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Would it be safe to test it in WP:RA's, such as a section in that for math? tLoM (The Lord of Math) (Message) (Report false positive) 03:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@The Lord of Math: I'm not really sure how best to answer that. I suspect the original advice to post first at the ill template talk page is sensible, and maybe also WP:VPT, but so would be including a demo, as you suggest. One thing you very definitely ought to do is to update the documentation to very clearly and obviously define its restriction on deployment in mainspace. I'm still not sure it's needed, but see what others feel. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)